What the 2012 Election Results Mean

First off, I want to say I was wrong about the election. I thought it would be closer than it actually was. By mid afternoon on election I knew it looked dim for Republicans. I miscalculated the impact of the last four years on voters. Having said that, the 2012 election does provide some very interesting into future elections.

With a poor economy, record, and skyrocketing deficits under President Obama the last four years, Republicans had an excellent formula to pick up the Senate and the White House. They got neither. The 2012 results may well indicate the United States received a political realignment in 2008.

     Political Scientists like to categorize elections into four categories.

     1) Maintaining election. Partisan ideology and loyalty remains the same and rewards the “in-party” or stronger political party. This is the most common election and it maintains the status quo.

     2) Deviating Election. This is a temporary shift where political ideology and loyalty generally remains the same, however some people defect to punish a bad performance/appeal to the weaker party. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton are examples of a temporary deviation. There has never been a three-term deviation in American history.

     3) Realigning election. The stronger party takes back control from the deviation. Political ideology, partisanship, and loyalty return to the norm. John F. Kennedy in 1960 and George W. Bush in 2000 are examples of a reinstatement.

     

     4) Realigning election. Partisan loyalty and ideology changes, they long lasting impact, and happen about once a generation, usually triggered around a national crisis. The two main realignments are FDR’s “Progressive Era” in 1932 and Reagan’s “Conservative Era” in 1980.

     2008 appears to have been a realignment election, perhaps triggered the economic crisis. According to Walter Burnham, realignments are almost predictable. They tend to occur at 38-year intervals. 1818, 1856, 1894, 1932 were all realignments with 1970 being another one (but hurt because of a plurality of issues in the early 70s, not fully integrated until Reagan in 1980). 38 years after 1970, is 2008.

     There are also 5 characteristics indicating a realignment election.  

1) Change in Regional Base of Party Support.

     Whigs were in both in the North and South before the civil war. After the war, the GOP was nonexistent in south. In the New Deal Era, the GOP lost a ton of support in North. Under the Reagan Era, Democrats lost the South.

2)  Change in Social Groups Base Support.

     People will go opposite directions. Pro Slavery Whigs became democrats/Anti-secession Democrats became Republican. Under Reagan, conservative Democrats became Republican.

3)  Mobilization of New Voters.

4) New Issues Divide Electorate.

     The economy generally is the reason for this one.

5) Voters Change Patterns and Thoughts About Parties.

     Party ID change is an example.

     In 2008/2012 we do appear to see a regional change in support. Once conservative states such as Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, (and to a lesser extent: Indiana) are now considered toss-ups. The toss-up states such as Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, have easily gone blue in the last two elections. The once “hopeful” turn red states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, appear to not even be in play at least at the Presidential level. The once dominant conservative states of Arizona and Texas will be in play for Democrats around 2020 (more on that year later). Texas voter ID is nearly tied between Republicans and Democrats.

     We also appear to see a change in the social groups. Hispanics generally have always gone liberal, but Bush nearly earned half of their support in 2004. Now they have gone heavily to the Democrats. Even Cuban-Americans in Florida, known to go about 70/30 Republican, went to Obama on election night in 2012. African Americans, single women, and young Americans all heavily went blue as well.

     Speaking of mobilization of new voters. Obama captured the young Americans solidly in 2008 and 2012. According to V.O. Key, who is one of the most respected political science experts, claimed if you get voters to vote the same way in consecutive elections, you will most likely have them for life. 2016 will indicate several things, including if Republicans lost a whole generation of voters. 

     New issue dividing the electorate: Even the least politically involved people could name a few today that vastly divide this country.

     The fifth part, Obama may not have yet, especially because of 2010, but it does appear he has the other four.

     So based on this evidence, 2008 was either a deviation or a realigning election. No deviation has ever gone three terms, so 2016 will determine 2008’s fate. The other reason why 2008 was a realigning election is because of the 2012 Senate elections. If Republicans cannot win in Montana, North Dakota, (lesser extent: Missouri and Indiana), they are in trouble. The political conditions and seats up for election should have given both houses to the Republicans.

     In 2012, Republicans did weaker in some categories despite the last terrible four years. More Mormons went to Bush in 2004 than Romney in 2012. Mitt barely squeaked by the popular vote of John McCain, yet both came nowhere close to Bush’s number in 2004, which still would have lost to Obama in both elections. In Colorado, more Democrats voted on election night than Republicans, an accomplishment that didn’t even occur in 2008.

     The saving grace to the GOP may have been 2010. If not were the massive victories across the country, they may have lost the House of Representatives in 2012. With redistricting, the House of Representatives is mainly secure until the 2020 Census. Republicans now have eight years to get their act in order before they truly become the “weaker” party in realignment. The party, however, is in disarray. ORCA was a massive failure, Speaker John Boehner cannot even keep his own party in-line, and he is kicking prominent people, such as Representatives Tim Huelskamp (Kansas-1), Justin Amash (Michigan-3), Walter Jones (North Carolina-3) and David Schweikert (Arizona-5 but the district will be relabeled the 6^th in 2013) off of key committee assignments. Amash claims leadership did not even contact him before the news became public about him losing his committee position. Some Republican lawmakers even faced establishment favored candidates in the 2012 primary.

     

     In terms of the Fiscal Cliff, Republicans cannot win and will blink first. If they make no deal, they will get the blame. If there is a compromise and taxes do go up (even by a small percentage), they will lose the base. If they let Obama get everything he wants and it fails or by some miracle works, they will get the blame if it goes bad and certainly will not get the credit if the situation improves. If not careful, the GOP could go the way of the Whigs, but that may be a stretch at this point.

     The 2016 field looks promising for Republicans such as Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Remember though, the GOP establishment vehemently opposed these candidates in the primary of 2010. With maybe the exceptions of Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, which GOP “establishment” candidate looks promising for the election? The bench is made up of non-established candidates. Which may be good for the GOP because the establishment choice has been 1-5 since 1976.  The only year they won was in 1988, which was probably because of the Reagan Realignment. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2016, I do not see how Republicans can win.

     If 2008 was a realigning election, 2016 will go to the Democrats. If it was a deviation, the GOP will win the White House. Republicans need to get their act together and move quickly to attract new voters, but stay on principle. If the GOP cannot, they will be weak after 2020. They will not have the chance to be as strong as they were on the national level in the 1980s, mid 1990s thru early 2000s, until 2046.

2012 Electoral Map Prediction: Who will win?

Since two weeks ago, there have been slight changes, most helping Mitt Romney, but is it enough to make him the 45th President of the United States?

There are three states that I cannot comfortably project. Flipping a coin in determining these states is probably just as good of a way to determine them. One of them by itself will determine the election, so the other two do not really matter. New Hampshire went from "lean Romney" to toss up although there probably is a slight Romney edge. Same for Obama in Iowa, although this has become toss up because of the four major newspaper endorsements in the state all went to Romney.

Ohio: Almost everything indicates a slight Obama advantage, although there has been significant progress by the GOP to counter the Early Voting/Absentee Ballot advantage Democrats had back in 2008. The "260,000" vote margin Obama won by back in '08 has now gone down to within 3,000 vote swing either way. Republicans generally cast more votes on Election Day than Democrats so this would indicate an Romney advantage. Obama's ground game is better though (as we witnessed its juggernaut status in 2008) so this could still allow him to squeak out a victory. Ohio will be the closest it has been compared to the last three elections. It will be tight and whoever wins Ohio wins the White House.

The other advantage that has helped Romney is some blue states. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota are all within two points based on some polling. Give the slight advantage to Obama in these four states because of the historical advantage Democrats have. It is possible that Romney could win one to four of these states (and Ohio wouldn't matter, although that would probably go to Romney then as well). Ideology in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania has changed since the last presidential election and the GOP have an excellent ground game in Wisconsin as scene in 2012 Recall Election of Governor Scott Walker et al.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are most likely going to Romney. I have them as pink because they are considered toss-up, but it is relatively safe to place them in the Romney camp. Nevada is the same for Obama.

In Colorado, more Republicans voted early and the state now has more registered Republicans than Democrats. Both were the opposite back in 2008. While Colorado is considered a toss-up, this data strongly suggests a Romney victory in three of the four corner states.

Essentially what I am concluding is after spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours analyzing this election, the only prediction I can make is that it will not be an Obama landslide. Do not be surprised if Romney has a landslide tomorrow and do not be surprised if Obama or Romney squeak by. Obama either barely holds on or Romney is the 45th President of the United States.

-Christian N.

State of the Presidential Election, Two weeks to go.

Before the first debate, President Obama had enough Electoral Votes to win the Presidency, even if he lost all the toss up states. Since the first debate, the Mitt Romney portrayed by the media has not been scene and voters now see him in a new light. Mitt Romney now has stronger favorability ratings than President Obama. Countless polls show people stating Mitt Romney can handle the economy better than President Obama. People watching the debates saw caring individual, who was looking presidential, and on top of his game. Not some rich guy out of touch with Americans looking to help his buddies save money by shipping jobs overseas.

If the election were held today, Obama would narrowly win:

The "Toss Up" states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida will go Mitt Romney on election night. New Hampshire and Colorado are seeing movement toward Mitt Romney and I would place these states on his side as well.

Iowa and Nevada are showing strong early voting/absentee ballots toward Obama and while there is time for Mitt Romney to make up ground (Rasmussen has Iowa at 48-48) President Obama has the advantage in these two states.

President Obama now has one firewall left in order to win a second term, Ohio. Almost all polls now have this state within the margin of error, so it's hard to say which way it will go, but as of right now, President Obama has a razor thin advantage only because he was leading there for awhile.

While no Republican has ever won the Presidency without Ohio, ironically Romney doesn't need it (but it would be his easiest way to win). 

This firewall can be breeched three ways.

1) Win in Iowa and Nevada. As I've stated earlier here, this appears to be a slight uphill battle.

2) Win Ohio. Self-explanitory.

3) Steal Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan.

In terms of option 3, Mitt Romney is the best candidate for Republicans to win Pennsylvania since 1988. Pennsylvanians like a big government, moderate republican. Tom Ridge, Tom Corbett, and Arlen Specter are the type of people that can win in a state where 50% of the people are registered Democrats.

Pennsylvania now also has other factors making it in play. Many blue-collar families from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the Northeast (Scranton region) are registered democrats, but are furious at this administration. One factor is because of the new resource of natural gas being drilled from the Marcellus Shale. Some polls show Mitt Romney winning in Pennsylvania and another moderate, Tom Smith (maybe Pennsylvania's like politicians named Tom) could be an upset choice for the GOP to win a Senate seat (over Senator Bob Casey, Jr.).

What determines this state is whether the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Chester, Bucks, Delaware,  and Montgomery), Pittsburgh , and in the Northeast show up to vote. If they do, this counters the the urban vote, and will be a victory for Romney. If they stay home (which would be a half vote for Romney compared to 2008) Obama still wins the state.

Wisconsin. Since Governor Scott Walker survived the recall and Paul Ryan is the Vice Presidential nominee, this state is in play. It hasn't gone to the GOP since 1984 so Obama still has the advantage here, but it will be close.

Minnesota and Michigan. They are the least likely to go to Romney, but if this is a landslide statement election, they will. I have scene internal polling where Obama is leading in Minnesota by two points, with still enough undecided voters to sway it to Romney.

Even the liberal states of Connecticut and Oregon (which will go to Obama) don't even have a double digit lead for the President.

So if the election were held on October 23, President Obama would barely win. There are still two weeks to go and the momentum is clearly with Governor Romney. This will be a tight election.

So tight as a matter of fact, a region in Maine or Omaha could decide this. Nebraska and Maine do not award all of their Electoral Votes to the statewide winner. They award them via congressional district winners with two votes going to the statewide winner. [Note: Electoral votes are given to states via amount of Congressional Districts + the two Senators they have]. 

Before 2008 in Nebraska and Maine, the statewide winner won all congressional districts. In 2008, Barack Obama won Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (Omaha) awarding him one electoral vote from the state. Since 2010, the district has been gerrymandered so it's unlikely Obama carries the district again. 

Maine's 2nd congressional district (mostly the northern region of the state) is very tight. In fact, Romney may win it. So if it is a 269-269 type scenario (where Ohio and NH go to Obama and Iowa and Nevada go to Romney or the map shown in my previous post), BUT Obama takes Omaha or Romney wins part of Maine, this election could be determined by one congressional district.

-Christian N.

A Tie In The Electoral College: 269 Obama - 269 Romney

In a time of great divide in the United States, could we afford another 2000 Florida-like situation? Could it be possible that 2012 will be more controversial than 2000? While it is only July and we are 110+ days outside of the election (practically an eternity for America) there is the possibility that the next President of the United States will be chosen by the House of Representatives as neither President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will earn the magic number of 270 delegates to secure the election. 

The 2012 election will most likely be chosen by 12 "swing" states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Outside of those states, President Obama currently has the advantage meaning Mitt Romney will need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates if he is to win it all. So if Ohio or Florida is called early for Obama  on election night, he is virtually guaranteed a second term.

Looking further, some of these 12 states are close in the polls, but have not been "swinging" in recent Presidential Elections. Pennsylvania has not gone to a Republican since 1988. While Mitt Romney is the type of Republican who could win the Keystone State and the GOP may have the best chance since 1988, a semi-popular Democrat (Sen. Bob Casey) is up for reelection against an unknown candidate Tom Smith. So if Obama can't ride the coattails of Senator Casey and win in my home state, I'm popping open the champagne bottle before the Mountain Time Zone is finished voting.

Wisconsin falls into the same category. While it was close in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic nominee has claimed the state in the past six Presidential elections. In order for the 269/269 scenario to work, this state needs to flip to Romney. If Governor Scott Walker can survive the recall and a recent poll shows Romney ahead 47% - 44%, the Badger State can turn red.

Obama appears to be semi-comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and is slightly ahead in Michigan according to most polls collected by Real Clear Politics. Iowa, the state that literally was the launchpad for Obama against Hillary Clinton in the primary (and supported him over McCain in November) will be tight on election night. Rasmussen Reports gives Romney the slight edge in Iowa.

Nevada went to Bush twice, but to Obama in 2008. The Nevada Republican Party is literally in a civil war between Ron Paul supporters and the state establishment. Because of this turmoil, I see Obama taking this state again. New Mexico and Colorado have become more liberal this past decade (although Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) needs to be the blueprint for the Republican Party to attract more Hispanic voters). Since Sen. Bennett (D-CO) survived the Tea Party wave of 2010, Obama should be able to claim two of the four corner states. 

North Carolina, the state hosting the Democratic National Convention. The host site can be kind a few months after the streamers and balloons leave, but I expect this state to be a disaster for the DNC. People are skipping the convention and the recent divide between the national party/local voters on some key issues will make the Tar Heels wear a Wolfpack Red in November.

Virginia. With the exception of Wisconsin, this could be the most controversial call in the map especially if North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida go to Romney because Virginia would be ignoring the regional/demographic trend [Note: If Wisconsin and Virginia are wrong on the map above, Mitt Romney earns 272 delegates].

Before Obama won the state in 2008, the last time Virginia danced with the left in a Presidential Election was all the way back in 1964 with President Johnson. The Real Clear Politics Average has Obama with a 3 point advantage over Romney (Rasmussen has the state tied, poll within the RCP link) and Virginia likes playing "bi-polar" politics. In other words: Virginia likes to vote for a Governor and President from a different party. 

In 2000, Virginia voted for President Bush, yet voted Mark Warner (D) as Governor in 2002. 2004 went to Bush again, but felt blue shortly thereafter as it voted for Tim Kaine (D) in 2006. Two years later, the state voted for President Obama and in 2010, (if you're following the trend) they overwhelmingly voted for the the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell [Note: Virginia Governors are limited to one term]. So expect this bi-polar trend to continue giving this state to Obama in November.

If all that plays out, the Congressional races just became way more important because neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney acquire the needed 270 delegates. If that happens, the House Chamber votes (not individually, but by state) and whichever candidate gets 26 states, gets the Presidency. This could be extremely controversial because Obama could easily win Pennsylvania on election day, yet lose that state on the House vote because there are more Republicans than Democrats representing Pennsylvania. A similar event happened in the 1824 Presidential Election. This is unlikely to happen in 2012, but it is a possibility. 

-Christian N.

Map was created at: http://270towin.com

Libya, Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the Mid East is on fire.

Two months ago (last blog posting), I created a map of what I thought the Middle East could become under the power of one ruler. I dubbed it the "New Persian Empire". Maybe I should have called it a different name, however, the possibility of the entire region (and even further, possibly including Morocco and other nations I didn't put "within" the boarders) being ruled by one person, a Caliphate is now more real than ever.

MARCH 19, 2011 OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'... MARCH 19, 2003 BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

I'm torn on us being involved in Libya. I do think Colonel "nutjob" Gaddafi  should be killed or brought to justice because of previous crimes he committed such as the Pan Am flight bombing over Lockerbie and the bombing of the German nightclub that killed many Americans. If President Obama launched a Tomahawk or ordered a B-2 Bombing raid over his palace, I'd say "bravo" and we would all move on. I do not think we should be meddling with a nation's civil war, especially because we do not have a defined mission. Must Gaddafi go or just stop killing his own citizens or do we want an East Libya and a West Libya?

If the Obama Administration, NATO, and the United Nations were serious about removing Gaddafi, the no fly zone would have happened weeks ago. Also, a No Fly Zone alone will not accomplish a goal of removing Gaddafi, or even him stopping a civil war. As we saw in Kosovo in the 90s, you need troops on the ground, and we all know we can't afford a 3rd front. This leads to the third main issue, how long will we be involved? There is a difference between launching a couple hundred missiles and a few B-2 bombing raids (as CNN is reporting) taking out military targets and us being involved for months or years.

The whole Mid East is on fire, which is why I don't like how we are picking and choosing our fights. What's next, we have to protect the citizens in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Bahrain who are being killed by their governments while citizens are unarmed? Again, I want Gaddafi killed, but I do not want a 3rd (or more) war, especially in the Mid East.

National Enquire Claims Obama Sex Scandal-Update

National Enquire has revealed a developing story about President Obama and a sex scandal with Vera Baker in 2004. National Enquire has been known to be the first to report on stories such as the John Edwards and Tiger Woods sex scandals and many others. Here is their full story:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit.

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds. Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

A top DC source told The ENQUIRER exclusively that the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

The ENQUIRER has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided.

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."

DEVELOPING STORY"
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589

This could be very costly in November and to his Presidency.  The President is innocent until proven guilty, but would the National Enquirer  be putting their reputation on the line, if they thought this story was not true?

---UPDATE TO ORIGINAL STORY VIA MEDIAITE. SCANDAL APPEARS TO BE FAKE:

"The National Enquirer, which published a report this morning that “investigators are attempting to obtain a tape” that proved an illicit rendezvous between President Barack Obama and former US Senate campaign staffer Vera Baker, has updated their story this afternoon to retract the claim that there is video evidence of the affair with the alleged testimony of an anonymous chauffeur.

Looks like the National Enquirer Obama sex scandal is unraveling rather quickly. The latest from the paper is that “An Enquirer reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account of the secret 2004 rendezvous.” The limo driver allegedly in the know about the affair is not a new piece of their puzzle– that claim was there last night– but in the absence of the video evidence of ambiguous age, which was the center of their report and would have been the one thing to lend them any credibility, the limo driver is the core of the story.

This clarifies that they are trying to uncover a 6-year-old maybe-affair with a testimony from the same time period, and that, rather than having footage, they just have one first-hand account of someone driving Baker to a hotel, where the President may or may not have been. The Enquirer has not made clear the changes other than adding the word “update” to the body of the report.

This also shifts the weight of the article from the story of the affair itself to the fact that, apparently, someone out there is “offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.” Why? If it indeed happened six years ago, and no one brought it up during Obama’s presidential campaign, what use is it now, halfway into his first term? The obvious go-to answer is that this could energize the far-right in time for the 2010 elections, but once it is revealed who perpetuated the rumors, true or not, about a story so aged, the tactic could easily backfire.

Truth or not, the story proved to be the first major test for the tabloid since it accurately reported theJohn Edwards affair, which restored public faith in the tabloid and resulted in the reaction to the story we saw last night. The major publicity that they elicited from that proved their one powerful foray into journalism was enough for the media to react with slightly more respect this time around given the subject at hand, and that was the reason the report surfaced here– not that the Enquirerpublished it, but that it had the journalistic capital, so to speak, for such a wild story to demand attention. As a news and media analyzer and curator, its our mission to report stories that are being reported. A story with this type of dubious, paper-thin accusation wouldn’t normally make the cut, but when a newly respected gossip forum reports it– and the story is reported solely because of the tabloid’s new reputation– it’s news in the media industry.

Unless they can pull out the kind of irrefutable evidence they found for the Edwards case, theEnquirer will return to their previous reputation as a salacious provider of specious rumor and innuendo, a stark difference from their recent placement alongside titles considered for a Pulitzer." 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/national-enquirer-obama-story-update-retracts-hotel-surveillance-claim/

CREN

Sources:

1. National Enquirer Article: Link
2. Splash News Online Photo: Link
3. Mediaite: Link

What a Difference a Year Makes

What a difference a year makes. On this day last year, Barack Obama was sworn into Office as the 44th President of the United States, with an approval rating above 70%. He took the nation by storm, and most thought he would bring Hope and Change to the country. This time, a year later, his approval ratings are around/below 50% with an index of -11 approval. It appears Obama realizes that campaigning is a ton easier that running a nation. The rest of the article will look at Obama's policies and actions, along with the impact they had to the country. First we will look at the positives.

The most positive impact President Obama had during his first term, which he deserves full credit for, is the handling of the Somali-Pirate situation with Americans. With the depolyment of US Navy Ships and SEALs, the Maersk Alabama's Captain held hostage by the pirates in a lifeboat was saved by snipers who eliminated the pirates. No one was killed/injured besides the pirates, and this is President Obama's finest moment in his first year as President.

His second finest moment, was his speech after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. While there may be some questions on why he got it in his first year as President, because he had to be nominated for the Prize, just days after being President, he handled it very well with his speech. He realized what the award meant to so many people around the World, and even said he wasn't sure if he deserved it. He also donated all the money that came with the prize to charity. The speech can be found here.

Another good moment was when President Obama signed the Reagan Centennial Bill into law.

Now on to the major negatives of his administration during the past year including January 19, 2010. This could get long.

Lets start off to a promise he has broken for every bill he has signed; waiting 5 days before he signed the bill into law so the American people would have time to view the bill, and give their opinion on it. Sadly, he has not kept that promise for any bill, which hurts our nation, and his credibility.

What started under the last few months under the Bush Administration, was quickly expanded by President Obama, Government Takeovers of companies. The Financial Industry, is now largely under control of our Government, 2 out of 3 major car companies are now controlled by the government, and now President Obama is about to nationalize the student lending program for kids to pay their way through college. When the government gets involved, things head for the worst in the company. Not ONE company/organization controlled by the United States, is profitable, including the postal service.

With Government bailouts, came large spending, here is a list of some of the bills that have been passed under Obama:

• TARP: $700 Billion
• Federal Stimulus Package: $1.2 Trillion
• Federal Reserve Bailout: $6.4 Trillion

In his first year alone, President Obama has spent more than every other President of the United States, COMBINED. All these programs have to show for, is increase in taxes, controlling wages, and higher unemployment rates. Over 10% of this nation is unemployed with an additional 8% underemployed, essentially making 18% (or almost 1 out of 5 people) in the workforce looking for a job.

Cash for Clunkers spent over $3 Billion Dollars, and most auto dealers HAVE NOT received the money for the car trade ins, and supplies have run short because salvageable parts that could have been taken from the cars were destroyed.

Our current national debt is above 12 Trillion Dollars.

Clearly when it comes to the economy and the free market, Obama has failed miserably.

During the campaign, Obama was considered a man who was most prepared to improve our foreign relations, and wouldn't be the "Cowboy" President Bush was. Obama's first year with foreign relations includes:

• First Interview as President with a Muslim News Channel
• Appeases to Middle East with a Speech in Cairo
• RETURNS a gift from Great Britain GIVEN TO US AFTER 9/11
• Gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown, DVD's THAT DO NOT WORK in Europe.
• Gives the Queen of England an I-Pod with his favorite songs, and pictures of himself.

If that is not an embarrassment to this nation, and our greatest ally, nothing is. Failure

Another area in the foreign relations department Obama has struggled in is Copenhagen...twice. First was the Olympics for Chicago, where he goes there and gives the "I, I, I, Me, Me, Me, Please Pick Chicago For 2016" Speech, that caused Chicago to be eliminated in the first round of voting. The second time was when he went there for the Global Warming Conference, which all they were able to do, is agree to meet at some point in the future...some crisis they dealt with. Which leads to another part of his agenda, Cap & Trade (or Cap and Tax). Just pending approval from the Senate is a bill that would take massive amounts of money from companies because of the amount of CO2 they release into the environment. Lets hope that fails reaching his desk.

The next area is Homeland Security. President Bush kept us safe since 9/11. Obama failed within his first year. Ft. Hood Shooting was committed by a Muslim Terrorist who happened to be in the US Military. We have been very lucky to not have a larger attack hit us yet, such as the failed attempt to blow up a passenger jet airliner over Detroit on Christmas. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano think it's the job of the department to respond to a terrorist attack essentially as a clean up crew, not to PREVENT terrorist attacks from happening.

The other area Obama has threatened Liberty is his appointment of "czars" that "control" a certain area without the approval of Congress, and take orders directly from Obama. That sounds like tyranny. There are at least 32 Czars in his administration, more than Russia ever had. Full List Here.

Another part of the economy the Obama Administration wants is our healthcare. The health care industry is 1/6 of our economy. A bill over 1,500 pages long, no transparency, back-room deals, and a plan that will destroy our health care system. While health care could improve in this country, Obama wants to destroy it. Lets pray no healthcare bill ever reaches his desk.

The last area we will criticize President Obama is his handling on the War in Afghanistan. It took over 94 days for Obama to come to a decision, when innocent men and women were killed during his decision time. He met with the commanding General of the fight (who Obama appointed) for 20 minutes while in Europe. The decision he makes is political. Send in a a descent number of troops for a surge, but not too many to make your anti-war supporters furious. He did not meet the minimum the General requested. Frankly you fight to win wars, not make political decisions based on them. Either go "all in" or fold is a better decision than this President Obama.

After one year, what do Americans think of these changes? A great "litmus test" is to look at elections. 4 major elections happened during his first year:

• Virginia
• New Jersey Governor
• New York 23rd District
• Massachusetts Senate Seat

On November 3, Republicans won by 20 points for the Governor, and won the Lieutenant-Governor and Attorney General positions. The first time one party took all 3 seats in Virginia's history.

In New Jersey, a heavily democratic state, Republican candidate Chris Christie beat the incumbent Jon Corzine for the governorship.

In the New York 23rd district, independent candidate Doug Hoffman (Tea-Party/Conservative) narrowly lost to the democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman crushed the liberal-republican candidate and almost beat the 2 party system. Look for him to run again in 2010.

In Massachusetts, this election takes the bacon. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union, and had a special election to fill the seat of the most liberal Senator Ted Kennedy. The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, defeated the democrat Martha Coakley by 5 percentage points 52-47. If this doesn't scare democrats, nothing will.

It appears Obama's policies are not that favorable to the American people, and Obama has lost a ton of support. If he does not change in 2010, expect landslide victories for the GOP in November, IF the party nominates fiscally responsible candidates who will control spending, taxes, and reduce government control on the free market. If that is the party's message, they will probably take a majority in the House, and be a small minority in the Senate.

CREN

Turkey & Israel

In an article called "Turkey and Israel share interests" by Yaakov Katz at the Jerusalem Post it mentions; the defense ministers of each nation held a press conference and that they would "remain strategic allies." The article also goes on to mention, "We are living in the same area although we do not have the same borders, we have the same interests."

In order to have peace in the Middle East, Turkey and Israel need to be allies. Having personally traveled to Turkey in the summer of 2008, it is a beautiful country, and a powerhouse in the region. It could be considered America's "dream" for the rest of the Middle East, which is a stable Muslim democracy. The United States considers both nations key allies, since Turkey is the second largest military force in N.A.TO. and Israel has always been an ally since the 1940s. It is reassuring from the article that the two nations want to be allies because recently there has been tension from the two sides.

Last year, an article by the Economist goes into great detail about how Turkey has been shifting from working closely to the European Union and "western" nations, (while Turkey has struggled to enter the E.U.) to focusing more on the Middle East nations not as friendly to the West such as Syria and Iran. One major point was when they denied US military access to invade Iraq in 2003. It also mentions how public opinion "has turned increasingly hostile to Israel" in Turkey.

In the article by Katz, it also talks about recent tensions between the two nations such as when: "Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish Ambassador Ahemt Oguz Celikkol to complain about an anti-Israeli TV show. The ambassador was forced to sit on a low sofa without a handshake, while Ayalon explained to local TV stations that the humiliation was intentional. Outraged, Turkey threatened to recall the ambassador, forcing Ayalon to apologize."

I think the real reason why Turkey and Israel has shown tensions recently is because of the situation between Israel and Gaza and no peace plan has been brokered. Another Jerusalem Post article mentions that "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was mediating indirect talks between Israel and Syria, felt personally betrayed" after Israel used military force in Gaza last winter.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems to be creating tension between Israel and Turkey. I am glad the original article says they want to continue to be allies, but unless a peace deal is brokered between Israel and Gaza, Turkey could align with the rest of the Middle East. If they do, Israel's relationship with Turkey would be in jeopardy and they could lose a huge ally in the region. It would also create a ton of controversy with the rest of N.A.T.O and the European Union, which I am sure the Obama Administration does not want. President Obama needs to make sure a peace plan is created between Israel and Palestine, (which all of his predecessors have failed), to ensure there is peace in the region, and continue our strong relationships with Turkey and Israel, which would also allow Turkey and Israel to continue their relationship, and be prosperous superpowers of the region.

Note: Article created for a school assignment.