Meet the GOP's Unconventional New Star

As the nation’s first female combat pilot, Rep. Martha McSally has always been one to cast aside convention.

Now that she’s a member of Congress, the Arizona Republican is showing no signs of changing.

After winning a recount against Democratic incumbent Rep. Ron Barber by just 167 votes, McSally didn’t get in line and keep quiet like other freshman. She began aggressively lobbying Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and won herself a subcommittee gavel and a platform to hold hearings.

The Republican hired former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s top spokesman as her district director — part of a broader push to reach out to Democratic, independent and minority voters she’ll need to win reelection in her southern Arizona district, one of the most competitive in the country.

The retired Air Force colonel and squadron commander also isn’t afraid to admonish fellow House Republicans. In a 30-minute interview with The Hill last week, she warned against GOP messaging bills that fire up the base but won’t pass the Senate.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Sessions: Obama's 'Secret' Plan 'Increases Spending by More than $1 Trillion'

Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, is releasing a statement this evening that claims President Barack Obama's "secret" plan "increases spending by more than $1 trillion above the current baseline."

"In other words," Sessions adds, "spending will increase $1 trillion above the already projected growth after enactment of the Budget Control Act as part of the last debt deal. It achieves not one dollar in net spending reduction or debt reduction, and it continues the country on a dangerously unsustainable debt path."

The senator's comments come in response to a series of interviews Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner conducted on the Sunday morning talk shows. The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee is also basing his remarks on reports of details of President Obama's proposal, which he narrows down to these bullet points:

The President proposes growth over and above the BCA baseline, which already calls for spending growth every single year. Specifically, President calls for:

· More than $170 billion in stimulus spending, including $26 billion for extended unemployment benefits, $50 billion for transportation spending, and $90 billion for an extension of the payroll holiday (which is considered on-budget spending)

· The elimination of the $1.2 trillion sequester (half of the spending cuts exchanged in 2011 for the $2.1 trillion in previous debt limit increase) without corresponding spending cuts, resulting in a $1.2 trillion spending increase

· The unpaid-for ‘doc fix’ or Medicare reimbursements ($394 billion)

· Only $600 billion in mandatory ‘savings’ primarily achieved through further reductions in provider payments beyond those in the President’s health law, which do nothing to enhance the long-term sustainability of entitlement spending

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Shift in proportion of white, minority vote could decide Obama-Romney race

The ethnic mix of this year’s electorate could decide the winner of the race between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

It’s a reality that gives both campaigns sleepless nights, since a shift of a percentage point or two in the turnout of any major racial group could swing the outcome on Nov. 6.

For Obama, the question is whether he can limit his losses among white voters — and whether minority turnout will remain strong enough for him to emerge victorious.

Romney’s challenge is to hold down his deficit among Hispanic voters, hope that black turnout does not match or even exceed 2008 levels, and pull out all the stops to push white turnout high enough to win.

According to exit polls from 2008, Obama lost the white vote to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by 12 percentage points (43 to 55 percent). But Obama won black voters overwhelmingly (95 to 4 percent) and Hispanic voters by more than a two-to-one margin (67 to 31 percent).

The downward pressure on Obama’s poll numbers among whites is clear. But polls, even from the same organization, disagree about its extent.

A Washington Post/ABC News tracking poll from Oct. 25 put Obama’s shortfall among whites at 23 percentage points (37 to 60 percent), a finding that sparked confidence from Republicans and inspired dread among Democrats.

The most recent iteration of the same tracking poll, however, found the margin to be 5 percentage points tighter, with Romney leading, 57 to 39 percent.

Given that whites represent about three-quarters of all voters, that 5-point shift would equate to a 3.75-point change in the overall national result — more than enough to produce a completely different winner.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading..

WAVE: ROMNEY UP 19 WITH SUBURBAN VOTERS

The 2012 Presidential campaign will be decided in the tree-lined cul-de-sacs that dominate the American landscape. Rural voters are reliably Republican and urban voters are reliably Democrat. But, suburban voters are the swingy-est of voters. In many states, they decide the outcome of competitive races. Stuffed with Independents, suburban voters started drifting towards Democrats during the baby boomer campaign of Bill Clinton. Today, however, there are signs they are rushing back to the GOP.

The latest Politico battleground poll, released earlier this week, shows Romney with a massive 19-point lead over Obama among suburban voters. Surprisingly, it's actually one point higher than his lead among rural voters. Obama leads among urban voters by 29 points. In 2008, Obama won the suburban vote by 2 points. The 21-point swing away from him makes his reelection very difficult. 

Obama's approval rating among suburban voters is deeply underwater. Just 42% approve of the job he is doing, against 57% who disapprove. A staggering 52% disapprove strongly. Romney has a net 23 approval rating among suburban voters, 59% approving with 36% disapproving. 

Over the past 30 years, no one has won the presidency without winning the suburban vote. Bill Clinton's successful campaigns were built on getting strong support from suburban voters. To some extent, Obama inherited much of the goodwill Clinton earned with this important voting block. Yet, in just four years, Obama seems to have squandered that. 

As the suburbs go, so goes the nation. Today, at least, the suburbs are going with Romney.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading..

Sen. Feinstein explains decision not to debate

SANTA ANA – U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday that she hasn't faced off in a debate against her Republican opponent because she's heard nothing from her challenger, Elizabeth Emken, that she needed to debate.

"There's just nothing constructive coming out of their campaign," said the four-term Democratic senator following a meeting with the Register's editorial board. She added that she's been accessible to the public and the media.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sits down with the Orange County Register editorial board at the Register's Santa Ana headquarters Wednesday. Discussion ranged from the Iranian nuclear program response to the attacks in Benghazi and the state of the US economy.

Emken spokesman Mark Standriff scoffed at the explanation and continued to criticize the incumbent's failure to debate.

"That's unworthy of the office she's been holding for two decades and disrespectful of the people she claims to represent," Standriff said.

Feinstein noted that she has debated in the past – John van de Kamp and Pete Wilson when she ran for governor in 1990, and Tom Campbell and Gray Davis in two of her Senate races.

Polls show Emken posing less of a challenge than those four. A September Field Poll put Feinstein at 57 percent and Emken at 31 percent, a 26-point margin that grew from a 19-point advantage in July.

Feinstein has a huge financial advantage as well, having spent $12.4 million through Oct. 17 while Emken has spent $745,000, according to federal disclosures.

Via: Orange County Register

Continue Reading...

Virtual tie in … Minnesota?

I’d be the first to tell people that my state is a quadrennial sucker bet for Republicans.  In 2008, no one thought we had a prayer, but in 2000 and 2004, Republicans actually thought they had a chance to break the Democrats’ presidential winning streak, as the state last went to the GOP in 1972.  I’ve been hearing Republicans get optimistic here again, but I’ve been highly skeptical of the prospects for Mitt Romney to even get close here.

Until now:

As the presidential race tightens across the country, a new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll has found that it is narrowing here as well, with President Obama holding a 3-point lead and Republican Mitt Romney making gains in the state.

The poll shows Obama with support from 47 percent of likely voters and Romney earning backing from 44 percent — a lead within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Last month, Obama had an 8-percentage point advantage in the Minnesota Poll. Romney has apparently cut into the Democrat’s advantage among women since then and picked up support from Minnesotans who were previously undecided or said they would vote for a third-party candidate.

Independents, on the other hand, are leaning more toward Obama. Barely a third supported him last month, but that number has grown to 43 percent. Romney’s support among independents remains virtually unchanged, with 13 percent of that group remaining undecided.

Bear in mind that this is the Star Tribune’s Minnesota Poll, which has a long and (un)glorious history of leftward tilt.  Mitch Berg has long documented this trend.  One has to wonder whether we’ll need to send paramedics to his house this morning after he reads Rachel Stassen=Berger’s report from the survey.

Snark aside, this looks like a relatively solid poll.  The sample is D+5, with a D/R/I of 38/33/29.  In 2008 when Obama won by 10 points, it was D+4 at 40/36/22, and I suspect that Republicans are going to be more motivated this time around. Obama wins the core counties in the Twin Cities, but only by a relatively weak 57/35.  Romney wins the Metro suburbs with a majority 51/39 and edges Obama 46/44 in the rest of the state.

In 2008, Obama had a 19-point edge in the gender gap, +3 among men and +16 among women.  This time, Obama has only a +1 — he’s up 14 among women but down 13 among men.  Obama still leads by 6 among independents, which he won by 17 points in 2008, but he’s only got 43%.  Late breakers are not likely to flow to the incumbent at this stage of the election; if the were inclined to support Obama, they’d already be in his corner now.

That’s true of the overall number as well. If Obama can only get to 47% in the Star Tribune poll with nine days left to go before the election in Minnesota, which has gone Democrat every presidential election over the last four years, this state is in play — and that’s why both campaigns are suddenly starting to spend money here.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading...

The Des Moines Register endorsement: Mitt Romney offers a fresh economic vision

Ten months ago this newspaper endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president. An overarching consideration was which of the party’s candidates could we see occupying the White House, and there was no question that Romney was qualified for the job.

Now, in the closing days of the general election campaign, the question is which of the two contenders deserves to be the next president of the United States.

Both President Barack Obama and Governor Romney are superbly qualified. Both are graduates of the Harvard University Law School who have distinguished themselves in government, in public service and in private life. Both are devoted husbands and fathers.

American voters are deeply divided about this race. The Register’s editorial board, as it should, had a vigorous debate over this endorsement. Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.

The former governor and business executive has a strong record of achievement in both the private and the public sectors. He was an accomplished governor in a liberal state. He founded and ran a successful business that turned around failing companies. He successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Via: Ten months ago this newspaper endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president. An overarching consideration was which of the party’s candidates could we see occupying the White House, and there was no question that Romney was qualified for the job.

Now, in the closing days of the general election campaign, the question is which of the two contenders deserves to be the next president of the United States.

Both President Barack Obama and Governor Romney are superbly qualified. Both are graduates of the Harvard University Law School who have distinguished themselves in government, in public service and in private life. Both are devoted husbands and fathers.

American voters are deeply divided about this race. The Register’s editorial board, as it should, had a vigorous debate over this endorsement. Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.

The former governor and business executive has a strong record of achievement in both the private and the public sectors. He was an accomplished governor in a liberal state. He founded and ran a successful business that turned around failing companies. He successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Via: Des Moines Register

Continue Reading...

IOWA, VIRGINIA GOVS: OBAMA OFFERED NO VISION FOR SECOND TERM IN DEBATE

Republican governors in Iowa and Virginia said on Tuesday that President Barack Obama failed to present his vision for a second term in his debate against Mitt Romney, echoing the concerns of undecided voters who thought the same after the debate. 

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad said Romney “explained with crystal clarity the difference between him and the President, and nowhere was that difference more stark than on the issue of the national debt.” Branstad noted that Obama “has racked up $5.5 trillion in national debt that will take years to pay off.”

“At the debate, the President reiterated that nothing will change about his policies in the next four years, ensuring that the debt will pile higher and generations to come will pay the price,” Branstad asserted. “That’s a legacy we don’t want to leave.”

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell stated Romney “reinforced the clear choice facing the American people” on jobs, taxes, debt, healthcare or foreign policy. 

He lamented Obama’s “tax-hiking, government-growing record” has “failed to turn around our economy or increase our nation’s influence around the world.”

“Americans know that we can’t afford another four years like the last four years, and tonight’s debate confirmed that Mitt Romney is the leader we need to deliver the change that Americans expect and deserve,” McDonnell continued. 

After Obama’s lackluster first debate against Romney, even progressive journalists said it was not not just good enough for Obama to attempt to tear down Romney. Those like NBC’s David Gregory and Chuck Todd said Obama now needed to present a clear vision for what his second term would be. 

And according to Messrs. Branstand and McDonnell, Obama did not even come close to reassuring the country that he had a vision to turn the country's economy around if he wins a second term. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

AP Fact-Checker Bulldozes Through Biden Falsehoods

WASHINGTON (AP) — Anyone who paid attention to a hearing in Congress this week knew that the administration had been implored to beef up security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya before the deadly terrorist attack there. But in the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden seemed unaware.

 

"We weren't told they wanted more security there," the vice president asserted flatly. During a night in which Biden and Republican rival Paul Ryan both drifted from the facts on a range of domestic and foreign issues, that was a standout.

 

A look at some of their claims:

 

BIDEN: "Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view."

 

RYAN: "There were requests for more security."

 

THE FACTS: Ryan is right, judging by testimony from Obama administration officials at the hearing a day earlier.

Charlene R. Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security, told lawmakers she refused requests for more security in Benghazi, saying the department wanted to train Libyans to protect the consulate. "Yes, sir, I said personally I would not support it," she said.

 

Eric Nordstrom, who was the top security official in Libya earlier this year, testified he was criticized for seeking more security. He said conversations he had with people in Washington led him to believe that it was "abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?"

 

He said his exasperation reached a point where he told a colleague that "for me the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

 

Via: Associated Press

Continue Reading...

House GOP Women Respond to Attacks by Rep. Wasserman Schultz

WASHINGTON - Conference Vice Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and U.S. Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Sandy Adams (R-FL), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Diane Black (R-TN), Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Nan Hayworth (R-NY), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Candice Miller (R-MI), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Martha Roby (R-AL), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) today issued the following joint statement in reaction to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) comments that Republicans are “anti-women” and waging a “war on women.”

“Apparently it’s open season on Republican women.  Between Ed Schultz’s tasteless insult of a conservative woman radio host, and Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz’s comments that the Republican Party is ‘anti-women,’ the tone in Washington, D.C. has reached a new low.

“Debbie’s accusations are baseless and inaccurate.  Republican women fight every day for the women who can't start a business because of burdensome taxes and regulations, for the women who worry that we are capping their children's future and trading it to China in exchange for cheap loans, for the women who deserve to make their own health care choices, and for this year's young women graduates who are entering a job market stagnated by Washington-driven uncertainty.

“It’s disappointing that Democrats would rather call names and use such divisive language than find areas where we can work together on behalf of American women and families.”

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading...