Hotel for President Obama's Ethiopia Visit Cost $412K

     President Obama visited Kenya and Ethiopia during his recent trip to Africa, and the hotel bill for the president and his entourage totaled approximately $412,390.86 for the Ethiopia stay alone. A contract with the Hilton in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa was posted online Tuesday:

     The president arrived in Addis Ababa on Sunday, July 26 and departed on July 28. The government also spent $7,540 for cell phones for the president's Ethiopia visit. The White House did not respond to a request for an explanation.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Taxpayers Foot $49K Bill for Air Conditioning, 'Staging' for Obama's Town Hall in Jamaica

     When President Obama visited Jamaica in early April, he held a town hall meeting with "Young Leaders of the Americas" at University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica. The president made remarks and took questions for only about 75 minutes in the Assembly Hall building on the Mona campus of the university, but the State Department issued four contracts totaling almost $50,000 for "staging" and the installation of generators and air conditioners.
    The initial "staging" contract was $39,935 with a followup change order for $3,675. The exact nature of the work is not spelled out, and the contractor is simply listed as "Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees." Photos of the event appear to show a low stage with several rows of seating on risers for selected representatives of the Young Leaders of the Americas and a row of flags from the nations represented at the meeting. Behind the stage, a high white wall was emblazoned with an official seal and draped with red, blue and gold bunting.
     There were also two contracts for the generators and air conditioners, one for $4,060 and another for $1,264. Temperatures in Kingston were in the 80s on the day of the president's visit. It is unclear if the building, Assembly Hall, is usually air conditioned. The university's website says the hall is the "main ceremonial venue" for the school, and is offered for rent on weekdays to outside groups for $50,000 and on weekends for $70,000. The website cooltechnologies.org says that the Mona campus underwent a "conversion of nearly 4,000 window, mini-split and central air conditioning units" to more efficient "hydrocarbon units" for "significant cost benefits", but does not specifically mention the Assembly Hall building.
     Just two days before his appearance in Jamaica, President Obama conducted a roundtable at the White House on the health effects of climate change and noted that certain health conditions are exacerbated by hotter temperatures, and this is a problem "particularly among the poor and minority populations who don’t always have easy access to air conditioning."
    There's no indication if the air conditioning installed for the town hall at the university was a temporary or permanent addition to the building at the university. The university did not respond to a request for further information.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

"Red Line" According to the Military? "You Can Get Shot"

    The declaration of a "red line" by President Obama a year ago regarding Syria and chemical weapons has provoked confusion among even the president's supporters, and derision from his detractors.  In a recent State Department press briefing, spokesperson Jen Psaki had the unenviable task of trying to make a fuzzy policy seem otherwise:

MS. PSAKI: Well, the redline has been clear. I know there’s been some confusion about this. The redline is the use of CW, the use of chemical weapons. That was crossed a couple of months ago. The President took action, which we talked about at the time. While, as I mentioned, we’re still focused on nailing down the facts – the intel community is focused on that, the Administration is focused on that – if these reports are true, it would be an outrageous and flagrant escalation of use of chemical weapons by the regime. So our focus is on nailing down the facts. The President, of course, has a range of options that we’ve talked about before that he can certainly consider and, of course, discuss with his national security team...

MS. PSAKI: We did take action. We did – we’re not going to outline the inventory of what we did. That remains the same as it was a couple of months ago. But the President acted. We crossed a redline. It did change the calculus, and we took action, and we have the opportunity, or the option, to do more if he chooses to do more...

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to outline the conversations, the private conversations, that are happening. There is broad agreement that any step we would take would be one – the decision would be part of what’s in our national security interests, what helps advance our interests in Syria, and certainly, the crossing of a redline would be part of that calculus and part of that decision. But there’s a range of options that are being discussed as well as a range of step – a range of incoming information that’s being discussed as part of these meetings as well. 

    Since the context of the president's red line declaration is a military conflict, it seems fair to look to the military for a definition.  Fortunately, we do not have to look far.  On July 18 of this year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter addressed the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.  While Carter was not discussing Syria or setting conditions on the conduct of foreign nations, in the course of answering a question, he gave an example of a literal military “red line”.  The contrast to the Obama administration’s red line ("exploring a range of options", "change the calculus") is stark:

And you have to have a system, which I would liken to our longstanding system for handling nuclear weapons.  You know, we have no-alone zones.  We have two-man rule.  You go out to, you know, Barksdale and walk around the Apron, and you'll see a red line.  And it says you cross that red line, you can get shot, because there are areas where you're simply not to be, because proximity to nuclear weapons is too sensitive and momentous a thing to be allowed for individuals.  Because, you know, there's always some aberrant individual somewhere, and you've got to recognize that fact. 

    The guards at Barksdale Air Force Base do not “explore a range of options.”  Crossing the line does not "change the calculus." It's not calculus at all - it's geography.  "You cross that red line, you can get shot."  Bashar al-Assad does not seem to take "getting shot" by the U.S. seriously.
    The State Department's diplomatic personnel might be uncomfortable with the concept of a red line; hence Ms. Psaki's reticence about specifics.  But President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful armed forces in the world.  Guards at Barksdale Air Force Base cannot and would not tolerate someone playing chicken on the red line on the Apron with the security of nuclear weapons.  And President Obama should not have allowed Assad (an "aberrant individual" if ever there was one) to entertain any doubts about the intentions of the U.S. if he flouted the chemical weapons red line.  The consequences should have been clear and unequivocal.
    The president often employs the phrase, "Let me be clear."  As his administration struggles to regain foreign policy credibility and formulate a response to the latest alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, let us hope that this time, the president is indeed clear.  Our national security depends on it.

AP Admits Wrongly Inserting "(and in)" Into Obama Quote About Gulf Ports

    The AP has issued a correction to a story about President Obama suggesting that Charleston, S.C., Savannah, Ga., and Jacksonville, FL, were located along the Gulf of Mexico.  The president made the gaffe on his Tonight Show appearance Tuesday with Jay Leno.  Here is the correction:

    The AP then reproduces the story and the quote as the president originally said it:

"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf - places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. - if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs," Obama said.

FDA: "Making Health and Health Care Equal for All"

    Liberals have long been accused of wanting to "level the playing field" by dragging everyone down to the same level rather than giving everyone equal opportunity by securing the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A recent post on the website of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is only going to reinforce that notion.  The post is titled "Making Health and Health Care Equal for All" and explains the mission of the Office of Minority Health (OMH), established by the Affordable Care Act:

What exactly are health disparities? And how can they be reduced or eliminated? 

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), achieving equality in health and health care is part of the mission of the Office of Minority Health (OMH). The office was established in 2010 by the Affordable Care Act to help the agency address the needs of Americans who may be more vulnerable because of their race, ethnicity or other factors...

There can be many causes of health disparities, says [OMH Director Jonca Bull, M.D.]. They range from underlying genetics to socio-economic status, lack of insurance and lack of access to quality health care, including preventive care and follow-ups when a disease is diagnosed. And this can be complicated by limited English proficiency, which can affect the quality of a patient's interaction with a health care professional.

    The article lists several diseases and conditions that have higher rates of incidence among certain ethnic groups, and notes that "minority populations ... also have higher rates of obesity, asthma, preventable hospitalizations and infant deaths."

    So what is being done?

    FDA works in partnership with its counterparts in [Health and Human Services] but as a regulatory agency, its role is unique in bringing about changes that could help level the playing field when it comes to health and health care. 

Essentially, everything FDA's OMH does is related to fighting racial and ethnic health disparities[.]

    Again, talk of working to "level the playing field" and "fighting... disparities." But what about improving health?  Here are the four bullet points in the article:

• Enhancing diversity on FDA's scientific advisory committees is one area of focus, involving the recruitment of independent experts who have a scientific background in related health fields and expertise in the areas of minority health and health disparities. These advisory committees provide advice on health and science policy issues.
• In December 2012, the Summit on the Science of Eliminating Health Disparities attracted more than 4,500 people and featured more than 100 workshops. The summit was led by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and co-sponsored by OMH and HHS. Highlights of the conference will be featured in a future publication on best practices for reducing health disparities on a broad scale.
• OMH works with health care professionals and patient advocates to increase minority representation in clinical trials of medical products.
• The office partners with universities to advance the study of, and research into, health disparities and the regulatory science that is the foundation of FDA's decisions.

    With the possible exception of the third point, none of these address actually improving the health or healthcare of anyone.  Even the third point ("increase minority representation in clinical trials of medical products") could be counterproductive if increasing minority representation skews the population sample away from one that reflects the population as a whole.

    Not until the very end of the article is there a statement about “ensuring the best health outcomes for all Americans.”  But from the very title of the article, it's a dubious assertion.  The FDA's aim is not equal access to good healthcare, but rather "Making Health and Health Care Equal for All."  If the focus is on increasing diversity and reducing disparities, the outcome is less likely to be the "best health outcomes for all Americans" and more likely to be the lowest common denominator for all.

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans: Part 5 - Final

    When the September state unemployment figures were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, October 19th, media reports focused on how nine all-important "swing states" fared.  As it turns out, unemployment dropped in seven of the nine, and held steady in the remaining two.  Politico's take was a rather tepid nod at a possible benefit to President Obama from the positive economic signs.  However, applying a metric I have used in the context of the state unemployment numbers several times since April (here, here, here, and here), the September swing state results take on new meaning.

    In this series (of which this is the final installment since the election is just three weeks away), I have analyzed jobs data on the basis of what I call Republican-controlled states versus Democratic-controlled states.  As I have documented, those states I have defined as Republican-controlled have far outpaced Democratic-controlled states in improving their rates of unemployment since 2009.  (I define "control" as the party that holds at least two out of three of the following: the governorship and the two legislative houses.  So, for instance, even though New Jersey has a Republican governor, Chris Christie, both legislative houses are held by Democrat majorities, so New Jersey is considered Democratic-controlled.)

    Based on the figures released by the BLS on Friday, October 19, when the states under control of the respective parties are combined and considered as one, the rates of unemployment are as follows:

Republican-controlled states    7.6%
Democratic-control states        9.0%

    Although this gap has narrowed since August (1.4% vs. 1.5% in August,) the difference is still substantial.  And those nine swing states?  Seven of them are Republican-controlled and only two Democratic-controlled (and one of those two is Nevada which, despite the improvement, still has the highest rate in the nation at 11.8%.  The other is Colorado at 8%.)

    The doomsday scenario for the Obama campaign is that voters in these swing states will credit the local Republicans (all politics is local? is that still true?) rather than the president and his party for whatever gains are being made on the economic front.  If that happens, then the defeat of President Obama will be even more overwhelming than I have been predicting since January.  Landslide, anyone?

Source: State Dept. OSAC Report is Behind Subscriber Wall

    Since September 12, 2012, the day after the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, I have been following the story of a report issued by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.  The report was originally issued on 9/6/12, five days before the attack, and a summary of the report appeared on the OSAC website in a menu of available reports as follows (entitled "Terrorism and Important Dates"):

    However, on September 14, three days after the attack and two days after my original post, that item disappeared from the menu of available reports and remains missing through the present.  From the beginning, I have allowed the possibility that the report was simply placed behind the subscriber wall on the site.  Certain reports are only available to "constituents". (The OSAC site says "OSAC constituency is available to any American-owned, not-for-profit organization, or any enterprise incorporated in the U.S. (parent company, not subsidiaries or divisions) doing business overseas.")  I did, however, think this was unlikely as summaries of other reports available only to subscribers remained in the site menus (for instance, one entitled "Narco-roadblocks in Colima and Jalisco" from 8/31/12; go back to 8/31 in the menu, and the summary is still listed; but to view the full report requires logging in.)  In my comparison of present menus with Google-cached versions of the same menus from earlier dates, I could not find a single report that was once listed that was subsequently removed as the report in question.

    Despite all this, I received confirmation today from an OSAC website subscriber that the Terrorism and Important Dates report is still available behind the subscriber wall via the original link address.  Although I admit my inner-conspiracy-theorist was somewhat disappointed at the news, it helps bring the remaining issues into focus:

• Why was the State Department downplaying the possibility of a 9/11 anniversary attack overseas and implying fears of such attacks were media creations?  (From original summary [emphasis mine]: "Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.")
• Why was the summary and link removed from the list of available reports on Friday, September 14th, three days after the attack, and placed behind the subscriber wall?  And who at the State Dept. removed the report or instructed that it be done?
• Is the tone of the memo indicative of a wide-spread attitude in the Obama administration that would explain the reluctance of administration officials to label the Benghazi incident a "terrorist attack" until days after many independent observers had already reached that conclusion?

    As of today, my inquires to the State Department/OSAC remain unanswered.

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans: Part 4

    This past Friday, September 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released state-by-state unemployment data for August.  Several times since April (here, here, and here) I have written about "President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans" in relation to the jobs data via an analysis of what I call Republican-controlled states versus Democratic-controlled states.  Those states I have defined as Republican-controlled have far outpaced Democratic-controlled states in improving their rates of unemployment since 2009.  For instance, in my July post, I noted, among other things:

• When looking at the 50 states plus D.C., out of the top 26 with the best performance on unemployment [since 2009], 21 are Republican-controlled and only 5 are Democrat-controlled. 
• Of the bottom 25, 15 are Democrat-controlled and 10 are Republican-controlled.  

    As I have explained in the past, I have defined "control" as the party that holds at least two out of three of the following: the governorship and the two legislative houses.  So, for instance, even though New Jersey has a Republican governor, Chris Christie, both legislative houses are held by Democrat majorities, so New Jersey is considered Democratic-controlled.

     Using this metric, I'd like to highlight just a single contrast from the recently released August BLS figures that I analyzed.  When the states under control of the respective parties are combined and considered as one, the rates of unemployment are as follows:

• Republican-controlled states    7.7%
• Democratic-control states        9.2%

    The rate in Republican-controlled states is a full one-and-a-half points better.  If the 7.7% rate had been reached in the Democratic-controlled states, almost one million more people would have jobs.

    For a campaign that has been criticized for lacking specifics, this real-world example of what Republican policies versus Democratic policies can produce would be a real boon.  Mitt Romney should make the case that his economic plan will tackle (as Joe Biden would say) that "three-letter" issue "jobs" with three letters of his own: G-O-P.

Missing State Department Report: "Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently."

    More information is surfacing that contradicts the Obama administration's claims that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11 was a spontaneous reaction to the trailer for an anti-Muhammad movie that was posted to YouTube in July.  US Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and the president himself have all suggested the movie was the catalyst and that there is no evidence the Libya attack was pre-planned.  However, CBS is now reporting (via the Weekly Standard) that unlike Cairo, there was no movie protest in Liyba at the consulate the night of the attack:

CBS reports this morning that witnesses are saying "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."

    During the past week, I have posted several stories about a State Department memo issued on 9/6/12 by the OSAC division downplaying the possibility of a 9/11 anniversary attack.  The memo subsequently disappeared from the OSAC website after the attacks.  I found and posted a cached version of the website showing the report listed prior to its removal on 9/14.

    However, it turns out I was only re-printing the opening paragraph of the report.  I subsequently realized the full report was much longer and was reproduced on the day it was issued (in full, as far as I can tell) on this website for Crisis Counseling International, an organization that apparently subscribes to the OSAC full-access website. (I had linked to this site in an earlier post, but did not fully recognize the entire post was part of the OSAC report.)  I have since discovered that much of the report was reproduced from a July 2011 OSAC newsletter (available here in PDF format.)  Here is the relevant portion of the extended report:

Terrorism and Holidays/Anniversary DatesHistorically, al-Qa’ida and other transnational terrorist groups have not conducted successful attacks on major U.S. holidays and anniversary dates. One possible explanation for this lack of activity is due to the increase in security on major dates because of a perceived vulnerability. A terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level. 

Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently. 

     That last line stands in sharp contrast to the week-long insistence by the Obama administration that what was clearly a well-coordinated attack by a large group or groups with serious firepower was just a spontaneous response to a movie.  As the report above says, "Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently." The question now becomes, if, again as the report above states, a "terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level," then why was this group able to conclude that security at the US consulate on a 9/11 anniversary in a very volatile country was not "heightened"?  Had the state department indeed grown complacent as I suggested here?

    Reports today indicate the administration has realized its movie-based explanation was crumbling.  The president made this explicit in an interview today:

President Barack Obama said that protests over a video that ridicules the Prophet Muhammad were used as a pretext for a planned strike against Americans.
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.  Well, we do not know yet.  And so we are going to continue to investigate this,” Obama said.

 Now the administration will have to fully explain its apparent lack of readiness for the 9/11 events in Libya.

The Incredible Disappearing U.S. Embassy Press Release

    Yesterday I wrote about how the controversial press release from the U.S. Embassy on the morning of 9/11 was getting more difficult to find.  Now it is completely gone from the Embassy's website.  The original link no longer works, and a Google search for the text of the release does not show up on any government websites at all.  The list of 2012 press releases has been fixed to remove the odd "Page Layout" entry that I noted yesterday, but there is still no listing of the press release in question:

    Is this disappearance simply an oversight?  Or history revision right before our eyes?

 * * * * * * *

Update:  Here's a screen shot of the Google cache version of the original statement that is now missing:

About the Cairo Embassy Press Release... [Update: Protest in Cairo was Scheduled]

    Some time on September 11, the US Embassy in Egypt released the following statement:

U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement
September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

 The statement has caused some controversy for condemning those who would "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" while ignoring the protests and trashing of the American flag and embassy grounds going on outside.  Curiously, the press release is only accessible with the link I used above, which has appeared in numerous news reports.  The Embassy's page of its 2012 Press Releases and Transcripts does not list the statement.  Here is a screen shot as of 11:32 AM EDST on September 12:

There is an odd entry "Page Layout" which would appear to be listed in the chronological place the missing Press Release should be, but clicking on it brings up a blank page.

    Also curiously, a Google Search for the title of the press release brings back 2 hits on the US Embassy Cairo Twitter account.  However, clicking on the one returns a "Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" and the other brings up a recent tweet that does not link to or quote the release at all.  [Update:  Twitchy.com has been reporting the deleted tweets since last night.]  Is the embassy trying to walk about the press release or at least obscure its timing?

UPDATE:  From a report yesterday (9/11) at Egypt.com [emphasis mine]:

[The embassy press release] came as a protest was scheduled to take place in front of the US embassy in the Egyptian capital over cultural sentiments that Muslim activists said betrayed their faith.

Some Things Speak For Themselves

    Posted today on the Washington state blog of the Obama campaign website:

Who’s In Wednesday - Bernard ABy OFA Washington on August 8, 2012 

It’s Who’s in Wednesday, Young Americans for Obama edition, and this week we’re joined by 11-year old Bernard A. 

Hailing from Vancouver, Bernard helps his mom phone bank every week, and has been a steadfast volunteer. At local phone banks, he makes calls like an old pro and he absolutely knows why he’s in for 2012. 

President Obama has made education a national priority. By investing in K-12 education, President Obama has worked to better prepare kids like Bernard for competing in the global workplace, and by doubling funding for Pell Grants, he has ensured Bernard can get the education he deserves. 

But that's not the only reason why he supports the President this election. 

“I like him because he can get everything he says done,” Bernard said. “I can look forward to the future and going to college [...] I like him because he’s modest.” 

If you, too, like the President and his modesty, then join Bernard in making phone calls, in volunteering, and learn why President Obama stands for and with the youth of this nation.

    I titled my post "Some Things Speak For Themselves," and as difficult as it is, I'm going to stick with that.  For now.

Republican-controlled States Dominate Job Growth [Updated]

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the June state-by-state jobs numbers on Friday, July 20th.  As I have reported twice before on this blog in April and May, states that are under Republican control ("control" defined as holding at least two out of three of the governorship and the legislative houses) have dominated whatever good news has come on the jobs front since 2009.  The following contrast sums up the results well:

• When looking at the 50 states plus D.C., out of the top 26 with the best performance on unemployment, 21 are Republican-controlled and only 5 are Democrat-controlled.  
• Of the bottom 25, 15 are Democrat-controlled and 10 are Republican-controlled.  

Other telling statistics are:

• The unemployment rate in Democrat-controlled states taken as a group is 9%.
• The unemployment rate in Republican-controlled states taken as a group is 7.5%.
• Of the states with the lowest unemployment rates as of June 2012, 9 out of 10 are Republican.
• The four states with the worst unemployment are under Democrat control.

The raw data I used to compile these statistics is found here.  I would welcome further analysis and/or critiques of my analysis if I have misrepresented any of the data.  But the contrast is stark and clear.  Any improvement in the job situation in this country over Barack Obama's presidency has far more to do with the help he's received from the opposing party at the state level than with any stimulus or policies implemented by the president and his party on a federal level.
    If this election is about the economy as elections usually are, Mitt Romney and the Republicans need to continue to tell this story if the GOP is to recapture the presidency and hold onto the House and, in a best case scenario, win the Senate.  Barack Obama often talks about the government building "roads and bridges" to stimulate job growth and get the economy moving.  But Mark Styen has it right when he said the president has more often built roadblocks than roads.
    It is often said (usually by the party in power when the economy is faltering), "There's really not much the president can do about the economy."  In some ways, that's true.  To go with the road-analogy, if the economy is a runner, there's not much anyone can do to help him run faster.  It's not as if someone can double his speed.  But someone (think Barack Obama) can sure put obstacles in his way and even slow him down or even stop him.  The way to help then becomes removing the obstacles and protecting the runner from interference.
    If we were starting with optimal conditions, the president could not do much to improve the economy - but we're no where near optimal.  Romney should not campaign on "I will create jobs," but rather, "I will remove obstacles keeping the private sector from creating jobs."  Republicans in the states have already shown this can be done.  Now Republicans need to present the case to the American people that putting the Republicans in charge nationally also will accelerate the return to a prosperous economy.  As the analysis above shows, the numbers are on their side.


UPDATE:  As the "right-wing hack" author of this "right-wing rag" referenced in the comments on this article on the Ventura County Star website, I want to stipulate that I am making no claims about the job gains in the month of June 2012, but rather the changes from 2009 to the present.  As noted above, I linked to my raw data so hopefully that gives me some "cred."  Monthly changes are often insignificant or anomalies, but the changes over several years can, and in this case, do tell a significant story.

YOU Didn't Build That

    President Obama, perhaps more than any president in recent history, has garnered a reputation for (to put it delicately) first-person pronouns.  CNS News reported recently that in a July 5th appearance in Sandusky, OH, the president used "I" and "me" a total of 117 times in a 25 minute speech.  Over his years as president, this tendency, as well as other self-referential habits, has earned him the unflattering title in some quarters of Narcissist-in-Chief.  In light of this, there is some great symbolism in the use of font sizes and styles on the current banner headlining the Obama campaign website featuring a quote from the president:

    Two big “ME”’s and one wee little “we”.  Upon further reflection, the campaign might find that perhaps the following rendition with different emphases might have come across as more appropriate and deferential:

"Stand WITH me, Work WITH me, Let's Finish What WE Started."

 After all, if you've got a presidency, you didn't build that.

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republican Controlled States

    Last month, I wrote about the clear and demonstrably superior performance of Republican-controlled* states in reducing unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April state numbers on Friday, May 18, and if anything, the difference is even more stark.  Just as the national rate dropped from 8.2% to 8.1% from March to April, many individual states (both Republican and Democrat) showed some degree of improvement.  I have updated my raw data spreadsheet, and the bullet points from my April posting are updated here:

• 9 of the 10 states with the lowest current unemployment rates are under Republican control, including six under complete Republican control, one of which is North Dakota with the lowest rate of 3%
• 6 of the 10 states with highest current unemployment rates are under Democratic control, and the four worst are all under Democratic control, one of which is Nevada with the highest rate of 11.7%
• 9 of the 10 states with the greatest improvement from 2009 to 2012 are under Republican control (and 8 of those are under complete Republican control)
• 7 of the 10 states with the worst performance from 2009 to 2012 are under Democratic control
• 9 of 16 states with current unemployment rates greater than the national average are under Democratic control
• The state with the greatest improvement from 2009 to 2012 (38%) is Michigan, under Republican control
• The two states with the worst performances from 2009 to 2012, Louisiana and Idaho (the rates actually went up,) are under Republican control, but their current rates are still less than the national rate of 8.1%
• States under Democratic control saw an average decrease of 9% in the rate of unemployment
• States under Republican control saw an average decrease of 16.8% in the rate of unemployment, close to double the improvement of states under Democratic control

As I said last month, if the decrease in the national unemployment rate had matched that of Republican controlled states, it would already be around 7.8%.  Conversely, if it had followed the Democratic controlled states, it would still be at 8.5%.  There are some anomalies: Vermont is under complete Democratic control and yet has performed very well; and four states under complete Republican control are included in the states with the highest 2012 rates.  There are obviously other factors at work in the states economic and employment situations, but the big picture is clear.  States under Republican control scored nearly double the improvement of states under Democratic control - the correlation is unmistakable.  And the Republicans could easily make the argument that if they had control at the national level as well as the state level, that progress could be accelerated.
    Since the economy seems destined to be the main focus of voters as November approaches, Mitt Romney and Republicans need to do more than just (rightly) point to the failings of the Obama administration and the Democrats on jobs, despite three and a half years of "focusing like a laser" on the economy.  The facts presented here tell the positive message in the unemployment situation:  Republicans are already doing what they can in the face of a national employment malaise, to borrow Jimmy Carter's 1970s terminology.
    Speaking of President Carter... As I noted back in March, during his 2008 campaign, President Obama asked voters to ponder the Reagan-inspired question, "Will our country be better off four years from now?"  The president may well come to regret asking the question.  Republicans need to confront voters with the question and the answer: "Is our country better off after four years under Democratic President Obama?  Not so much.  But look what Republicans have done in the states.  Put us in charge and we can do the same for the whole country.  Not with mandates and taxes and regulations, but by getting government out of the way of the nation's economic engine, the American people."  Not only does this claim have the benefit of being true and easily illustrated with the facts, the positive message will provide a sharp contrast to the campaign of fear and divisiveness the Democrats and the president are waging in an attempt to eke out a second term.


*"Control" is based on holding at least 2 of the 3 of the following: governor, upper legislative house, and lower house.  “Complete control” means holding all three.   

Happy Mother's Day From The Affordable Care Act

    I would like to take credit for the title of my post, but the White House beat me to it.

    Yes, nothing says "Happy Mother's Day" like a political statement about an increasingly unpopular piece of legislation during an election year.  Act now to reserve your Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Father's Day cards!

Log Cabin Democrats

    One gets the sense from the Obama campaign's response to the President's announcement regarding same-sex marriage that the whole thing was like a surprise party gone wrong.  Preparations have been under way behind the scenes for months, perhaps years; the President has on more than one occasion issued unequivocal support for traditional marriage; then at other times, he gave hints that perhaps something was afoot.  But on Sunday, Joe Biden leaned too heavily on the closet door and came stumbling out into the living room.  Surprise!
    Whether or not Biden's slip was part of the plan (a matter of some debate,) within hours if not minutes of the President's interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, the Obama campaign began to release a torrent of tweets on their Twitter account, blog entries on barackobama.com, fund raising emails, and even YouTube videos proclaiming the end of Evolution - the President had arrived at the highest form of same-sex marriage positions.
    But has he?  Even though the President's supporters let fly with a million dollars in new campaign contributions almost overnight, many commentators on both sides of the political divide are unconvinced.  Rush Limbaugh spent a good deal of time on his show Thursday explaining that nothing has changed.  Everyone already knew President Obama supported same-sex marriage anyway, and his announcement on Wednesday was nothing more than rhetoric - his administration has committed to no actions to bring about the end goal.  He wants to leave the decision "up to the states," which is in itself problematic given his administration's stand on the Defense of Marriage Act.  The President's supporters are certainly used to empty rhetoric by now, but the "historic" nature of the moment seemed to have once again trumped the less promising reality.  It is even likely the President timed his coming out to follow the drubbing same-sex marriage took in North Carolina in order to capitalize on the fury its supporters felt.  The lower the low, the higher the high.
    But once the euphoria wears off, how will the President's followers view what the President himself was quick to cast as "history" being made?  It has occurred to me Obama’s gay marriage stance sounds an awful lot like Lincoln’s oft criticized letter to Horace "Go West, Young Man" Greeley.  President Lincoln wrote to Greeley in an effort to explain that as President, saving the Union took precedence over all other considerations, including slavery, regardless of his personal feelings.  Critics have tried to paint Lincoln as weak on slavery based on this letter despite the fact that soon after he wrote the letter, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves and paid for it with his life a few short years later.
    The modern LGBTers see themselves as the modern day slaves, oppressed by society much like blacks in the days of Lincoln.  Frankly, I find the equivalence repugnant and silly, but for purposes of comparison, let's see what the President was really saying in his announcement on Wednesday.  With apologies to Abraham Lincoln, I have slightly altered the wording of his letter (Lincoln's original words are italicized) to fit the current controversy in which President Obama finds himself enmeshed:

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.  If I could save my presidency without gay marriage I would do it, and if I could save it by gay marriage I would do it; and if I could save it by allowing some gays to marry and some to not marry I would also do that. What I do about gay marriage, and LBGT people, I do because I believe it helps to save my presidency; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save my presidency. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men and women every where could marry whichever sex they choose.

President Obama's supporters have often characterized him as a modern-day Lincoln.  On Wednesday, he played that role, but in their interpretation of Lincoln, in the least admirable way.  As it becomes clear in the coming months that the president will issue no Emancipation Proclamation of his own, perhaps those supporters will recognize the hard truth that while both Lincoln and Obama hail from Illinois, the current president is just another Chicago politician after all.

Un-Conventional Choice?

    The National Journal reports that some in the Democratic party are voicing doubts about holding their national presidential nominating convention this year in Charlotte, North Carolina for a growing variety of reasons.

• Democrats who already were queasy about the site of their national convention could be excused after Tuesday's election in North Carolina if they asked, "Tell me again just why we're going to Charlotte this year?" In fact, many Democrats privately are asking exactly that after the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a measure outlawing not just same-sex marriage -- which already was illegal in North Carolina -- but also any form of civil unions.
• [L]abor unions... are still miffed that the party decided to go to a "right to work" state and a city with few unionized hotels.
• [A]n unpopular Democratic governor who has decided not to run for another term, likely handing the statehouse to the Republicans. And don't forget a messy sexual harassment scandal that has forced the state Democratic Party's executive director to resign...
• And, oh yes, there is the fact that President Obama will be accepting his nomination with a speech at the unfortunately named Bank of America Stadium, an occasion that will lead to a run of stories about the $45 billion that the banking powerhouse received in the unpopular TARP bailout.

   Well, it seems that West Virginia is out of the running for a relocation of the convention after an embarrassing performance for President Obama in the Democratic Primary there on Tuesday.  A relatively unknown challenger and federal inmate, Keith Judd (pictured right), garnered 41% of the vote against the incumbent.  (The use of "relatively" in that previous sentence is even somewhat charitable, but regardless, one gets the impression that Judd was a stand-in for "none of the above" on the ballot in a state that is feeling less than charitable towards a president who seems to have targeted one of the state's largest industries, coal production, for extinction.)  But speaking of Judd, perhaps the Lone Star State would be a good choice for the Democratic convention since the party's newest rising star currently resides deep in the heart of Texas.  Runner-up primary candidates are often given prime time speaking roles at conventions and since Judd's ability to travel is currently, um, limited, maybe Texas is just the ticket.  Who knows? Now that his recognizance has been elevated, maybe he could get a weekend furlough.  On second thought...

Name That Campaign

    Here's a challenge for you.  Below are the main menu bars from the websites of both the Obama and Romney campaigns.  Try to guess which one is which:

    Visually, they are quite similar.  The "Donate" button is (of course) prominently displayed in red on both.  Other choices, such as "videos", "issues", and "states" are the same.  Still others are worded differently, but also clearly match up: "bio" = "about", "news" = "blog", "store" = "shop", and "volunteer" = "get involved".  By now, the good students will have recognized the odd man out: "groups".  Is there anyone who is still confused about which menu bar goes with which campaign?  Spoiler alert!

That's right.  It's the website of the politician who said on election night 2008:

"Rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America."

The Obama campaign recently resurrected this theme on Twitter:

(Not only are there no red states or blue states, but about a dozen states are completely missing in  deference to the visage of the President.)  Coincidentally, four days after this tweet, the official WhiteHouse.gov site also got into the act with their weekly feature West Wing Week video: "West Wing Week: 5/4/12 or 'Out of Many, We are One.'"  However, the way the campaign and the Democrats choose to appeal to voters, Al Gore's infamous 1994 remix of E Plurbis Unum as "out of one, many" would be more apropos.

FAIL: A Twitpic is Worth a Thousand Words

    Breitbart's Big Government is reporting on an embarrassing turnout for President Obama at his first 2012 campaign rally.  (Frankly, the campaign's insistence that this was the "first" 2012 campaign event is itself embarrassing, but that's another story.)  The Romney campaign posted this photo on Twitter taken at the President's Saturday rally at the Ohio State University arena:

Big Government reports:

 According to ABC News, the Obama campaign had expected an "overflow" of people.  Instead, the arena looked half-empty.  The Columbus Dispatch reports that Obama organizers even had people move from the seats to the floor of the gym in order to project a larger crowd on television.
According to the Toledo Blade, the venue for Obama's rally seats 20,000 but "there were a lot of empty seats." Comparatively, Obama drew a crowd of 35,000 at Ohio State when he campaigned for former Governor Ted Strickland in 2010.
The official Barack Obama Tumblr boasts a figure from ThinkProgress that 14,000 attended the event--70% of the stadium's seating capacity.

Big Government goes on to say, "To hold a campaign event in a room that you can't fill is a mistake; to promise the media a more-than-capacity crowd then fall this far short of that promise is utter incompetence."
    As it turns out, it's even worse than that.  Early on Saturday, the Obama campaign's pretentiously named TruthTeam2012 tweeted the following taunt of the Romney campaign:

    What the TruthTeam left out was that this photo is from a February 24, 2012 event in Detroit when Romney was addressing 1,200 members of the Detroit Economic Club.  The stadium was actually a change in venue because according to the Detroit Free Press, "an initial plan to hold the event at the Westin Book Cadillac [hotel ballroom]... quickly became oversold."  As a matter of fact, according to the headline at mlive.com, "Detroit Economic Club moves Mitt Romney speech to Ford Field after original venue sells out in hours."  Sure, the campaign took some hits from the usual suspects at the time for the unfortunate "optics," but this was an event hosted by an economics club, for Pete's sake, which sounds about as exciting as a CPA convention (I'm an accountant, so I'm allowed to say that.)
    On the other hand, today's Obama event was the kickoff for the reelection campaign for the Greatest President in the History of Great Presidents, organized weeks in advance (if not months) by the Greatest Campaign Team in the History of Great Campaign Teams.  The Obama campaign even promoted the rally incessantly this week on Twitter.  As it turned out, Saturday's rally was the political equivalent of skier Bode Miller at the 2006 Turin Winter Olympics, or, to put it more bluntly, a face-plant.  Failure is never so awkward as when success is supposed to be a given.  Babe Ruth famously said, "It ain't bragging if you can do it."  But if you can't do it, everyone knows what that's called.