Wayne Root: Only welded on Democrats support Obama now

2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root has raised the issue of just how bad those poll numbers are for President Obama in his Fox News Column: 

Have you seen Obama’s poll numbers? They are among the lowest in history. As of today, Obama’s approval rating is at 38%. That’s just barely above Richard Nixon. 

Keep in mind Obama has the support of about 35% to 40% of the population that will NEVER abandon him, no matter what he does, no matter how bad the jobs numbers look, no matter how low the economy goes, no matter how much scandal and corruption is exposed, no matter how strong the facts are against him. Nothing will ever change their minds. These are the “low information voters” of the Democratic Party.  

So just think about that for a moment. Let those numbers sink in. If 35% to 40% of the population would support a Democrat for President if he ran from a prison cell…if 35% to 40% would support Obama no matter what he does, no matter how far America sinks under his leadership, how could Obama’s approval rating be at only 38%?  

That means that among the rest of America, outside of loyal, lifelong, Kool-Aid drinking Democrats, Obama’s ratings are nil. Among non-partisan voters, he is the lowest-rated President in history. No numbers like this have ever been recorded, if you filter out the crazies. 

Obama’s approval among “the Heartland of America” (non partisan middle class Americans) is lower than Nixon. Lower than W. Lower than Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam war. Lower than Jimmy Carter at the height of the Iranian hostage crisis, with the added burden of an economy in misery and malaise. … 

… Remember that about 47% of Americans get entitlement checks from government. Obama is PAYING for their support and he still only has 38% approval. You know you’re unpopular when even bribes don’t work anymore! 

This man has managed to pull off something remarkable and historical- he has alienated almost every single American who actually works for a living and pays taxes. He has virtually zero support among the 53% who aren’t getting a check from government. You can’t find another instance of that in the history of American politics.

Gillard calls leadership spill on State of Origin night

Cartoon: By Bill Leak

In her typical ham fisted and inconsiderate manner the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has called for a ballot on the Labor leadership on State of Origin night when everyone but deadshit politicians have better things to do than watch the death those of the government.

Essentially she is hoping to short circuit the Rudd challenge before he is ready, or at least try to deny further waverers the time to abandon ship: 

The Prime Minister has called a leadership spill for 7pm in an attempt to finish off Kevin Rudd's political career once and for all. 

Mr Rudd said he had been convinced to stand by colleagues and at the urging of tens of thousands of Australians who were afraid of what an Abbott government would do, including reviving Work Choices under another name. … 

… The Prime Minister has demanded the loser of the ballot must resign from parliament to resolve Labor's leadership crisis once and for all. ''I believe anybody who enters the ballot tonight should do it on the following condition,'' she told Sky News. 

''If you win you are Labor leader. If you lose, you retire from politics.”

The writing has been on the wall for Gillard for a long time, becoming bold with the failure of her last attempt at recreating her gender war.  It adopted a larger font on Monday with a disastrous showing in opinion polls, then went all caps after the ludicrous kangaroo knitting farce yesterday.

This ‘photo op’ has been such an embarrassment that both the woman’s Weekly and the Gillard camp are blaming each other for coming up with the idea. 

Both Rudd and Gillard are currently on television claiming that each has to do this because of Tony Abbott.

It will be a great disappointment if Gillard loses as we have all been waiting to toss her out ourselves in September.  Tossing Rudd out will be something of a consolation but not as satisfying as ridding ourselves of our tormentor.

Abbott could win the Senate, but not till July 2014

Labor is expected to go down to one of its worst election defeats in September, possibly only getting 30 – 35 seats in the 150 seat House of Representatives.  Kevin Rudd, even if he can roll Gillard before then will have little impact on that as his own knifing was caused by his poor poll ratings.  Voters will soon remember his tenure in the top job and the Liberals have plenty of television footage of his own party’s opinions of him.

With the merely terrible polling of the past few months, the Senate appeared to be a bridge too far for Abbott owing to the healthy margin of the Labor/Green coalition.  Given the disastrous polling at present, that may not be the case: 

TONY Abbott stands to gain control of the Senate on September 14, relegating Labor to its worst election result since 1901, according to a new state-by-state polling analysis. 

New fears have spread through senior Labor ranks that the number two Labor Senate positions in a number of states could now be at risk with Labor's primary vote at or below 30 per cent in most states. And the union movement is becoming increasingly worried that unless Labor can maintain some influence in the Senate with the Greens, it will be powerless to stop the Coalition trying to crush the union movement. 

An analysis of the latest polls, showing a primary vote of 29 per cent, suggests Labor could end up with only 25 to 26 Senate positions out of 76. 

With the primary vote in the Senate traditionally three to five points lower for Labor than what it receives in the lower house, Labor stands to elect potentially just a single Senator from Western Australia and Queensland and just two in most other states. With the Greens likely to end up with 10 to 11, Labor would not be able to exert any influence in the Senate.

Should this pan out on election day it will be a cause of celebration everywhere other than within Labor, Fairfax Media and the ABC, however it will not mean that the LNP will be able to implement their policies immediately. The Senate unlike the house, has fixed terms and the newly elected Senators will not take their seats until July next year. 

Abbott and his party will go into government immediately, but will have to wait eight and a half months for the Senate to come into line.  Until then it will still be controlled by a substantial number of Senators who are effectively the walking dead.

Anything the new government passes will be voted down by people voted out of office until July next year.  Former PM, Paul Keating famously described the Senate as unrepresentative swill.  He will definitely correct during that period.

We need to go to fixed parliamentary terms immediately. 

Gillard plays gender card again

Image: By Zanetti (Commenting on the blue tie thing) 

Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up.  In this case, there would be no point because Gillard or her spin-doctors have already made it up.

Labor has adopted a siege mentality with polls consistently showing a wipeout in the coming election. Labor is trailing by 10 – 16% on a two party preferred basis for as long as most can remember and the PMs tenure is under increasing speculation.  Most pundits doubt that she can survive for the remainder of the fortnight left in the current parliamentary session.  The tail fin of former PM, Kevin Rudd is circling the raft, and police are investigating her over her alleged part in the AWU fraud.

In such times, the ‘real Julia’ comes to the fore as it has this time with blatant attempts to smear her opponents with the race card, class warfare rhetoric, or in this case, the gender card: 

A crowd of about 100 people turned out to see the PM rally her female support base and launch a stinging attack on the Coalition's leadership team, without mentioning Mr Abbott's deputy leader Julie Bishop. 

“I invite you to imagine it, a prime minister, a man with a blue tie, who goes on holiday to be replaced by a man in a blue tie, a treasurer who delivers a budget wearing a blue tie,” said Ms Gillard. 

She introduced abortion as an election issue. 

“We don't want to live in an Australia where abortion again becomes the political plaything of men who think they know better,” Ms Gillard said.  “That's not the future we should choose for our nation.”

This is deliberate deceit, something we are becoming increasingly accustomed to from this government.  Just for starters, while Abbott may be conflicted on the abortion issue owing to his Catholic faith, he has made no effort to prevent it.

Were Abbott (in a blue tie or otherwise) to go on holiday, his place would be taken by his deputy, Julie Bishop who, unless we are badly misinformed is not a man nor has she shown any propensity for wearing blue ties.

Only the few remaining Labor supporters left could believe this and even then it is straining their credulousness.

Most US college students want less government in their lives

One of the greatest concerns for the future among libertarians and fiscally responsible small government elements of the conservative movement is the way in which students are being propagandised by liberal educators.

A new poll taken by Young America’s Foundation seems to contradict this view with an overwhelming majority holding a negative view of government intervention in their lives.  Many of us have a deep concern as to what the current actions of government will saddle future generations with and students are waking up to what is in store: 

… About 45 percent of 18 to 34-year olds are unemployed according to a recent poll by Demos, a public policy firm. I still know of college classmates who have yet to find meaningful jobs or are severely underemployed almost four years after graduation. However, a recent poll on young people's views of limited government, free markets, and economic liberty suggests some may be waking up to the conclusion that government, over-regulation, and more spending will not turn our futures around. 

In a survey launched by Young America's Foundation and conducted by the polling company, inc., more than 60 percent of college-age students feel that government should not take an active role in their day-to-day-lives, and half of respondents believe that the federal government is mostly hurting economic recovery. 

President Ronald Reagan said, "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States." And, as the poll suggests, young people share this belief: 66 percent of the students polled had a positive opinion of "entrepreneurship," 44 percent found "free markets" positive, and 42 percent believe the federal government is an opponent rather than a partner in the pursuit of the American Dream. 

It seems every time we turn on the TV or visit our favorite news site, the media is telling us what issues should matter to us, such as gun control and abortion. However, in YAF's study, neither of those issues rank in the top five for the respondents, who cited the economy (21 percent), jobs (16 percent), education (16 percent), and the national debt (14 percent). We went to college or received an advanced degree in hopes of bettering our situation and having a productive and fruitful life. Isn't that the goal of every generation? 

The poll seems to indicate that our leaders in Washington are keeping us from doing that. Six-in-ten young people are displeased with the way that their public officials represent young people. That shouldn't surprise many, judging by the approval rating for Congress. The respondents felt that our leaders have bungled the recovery and are out to score points on each other, rather than solve the problem.  

Many in Congress use scare tactics to call for more government spending, higher taxes, and more regulations to "even the playing field." That doesn't sit well with my generation. Seventy-six percent of respondents feel that government spending has to decrease if we are to have any hope of improving our economic situation, nearly 40 percent want less regulation, and nearly 60 percent want lower taxes. …

The future may be in better hands than the present is.

Its incompetence Julia, not, we’re not used to female PM

Cartoon: Bill Leak 

Since coming a gutser on her last attempt to play the ‘misogyny card’ on Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard is now using the more condescending line, that Australians are still struggling with the idea that we have a female PM: 

She was asked if she believed hostility towards her by the media and some politicians was based on misogyny. 

The Prime Minister said she had always been very clear about "calling it out" when she saw sexism but wanted to focus on a broader point about the novelty of having a woman in the job. 

"It's not been ever the norm in our nation before for people to wake up in the morning and look at the news and see a female leader doing this job," she said.  "For all of the years before you would see a man in a suit. 

"I am not a man in a suit.  "I think that that has taken the nation some time to get used to. I think it's probably still taking the nation a bit of time to get used to." 

Ms Gillard said she has had some "uncomfortable moments" in the role but predicted it would get easier for future female leaders.

The truth is, that Gillard took over an unpopular Labor government with the knifing of Kevin Rudd, and then held an election during the traditional ‘honeymoon’ period.  She lost, but was able to cling to power with the purchase of a couple of quirky, eccentric independents, and the support of the Greens, for which she has paid an enormous price, both in taxpayer funds and what little credibility she had in the first place.

Since then, her government have screwed up everything it has touched, trashed the economy, and engaged in bitter and divisive class and gender warfare.  Gillard’s problem is not that she is female; it is that she and her government are completely incompetent, and their hostility to any form of criticism or even scrutiny has turned people off. 

The majority of people had goodwill towards the concept of a female PM, it has for a long period been just a matter of time for it to happen.  Her attempts to claim otherwise are merely the result of victim mentality.

Inept governments here get voted out very quickly, as is about to happen to Gillard.  The same happened to Gough Whitlam, who led an inept and scandal plagued government from 1972 until dismissed in 75, surviving a double dissolution in 74.

Gillard is going the same way, for the same reason.

Far from securing the future for female leaders as she contends, for some time future female leaders will have to overcome the memories of Gillard. 

Labor gains recruit with promise of senate seat

Julia Gillard has found something of a novel recruiting tool for signing up new members to fill the dwindling ranks of the Labor Party, offering a senate seat in exchange for joining.  In what seems to be another symbolic gesture, indigenous Olympic gold medalist Nova Peris has been offered preselection for the Northern Territory senate seat in the coming election.

Ms Peris has not been a member of the party before, and in fact has yet to join but has indicated that the position along with the $190,000+ salary, $32,000 electorate allowance, superannuation, car, travel, and accommodation along with lurks and perks is tempting enough to coax her into Labor: 

INDIGENOUS Australian and Olympian Nova Peris is set to stand as Labor's number one Senate candidate in the Northern Territory after the intervention of Julia Gillard. 

The Prime Minister said she had exercised her discretion to make a “captain's pick” in selecting Ms Peris to run for the seat, currently held by Labor senator Trish Crossin.  She has asked ALP chiefs to approve the move by overruling local preselection processes. 

The move to dump Senator Crossin after 15 years follows the Country Liberal Party's victory over Labor in last year's territory election.  Ms Gillard said she was troubled that Labor had never been represented in the federal parliament by an indigenous Australian.  “I am determined that at the 2013 election we change that,” she said. 

“I've asked the national executive to work with me in ensuring that Nova is eligible to stand for preselection and that she is preselected as our number one candidate for the Senate in the Northern Territory. … 

An emotional Ms Peris thanked the Prime Minister for the “amazing opportunity” to stand for Labor preselection.  “I stand here before you all today not only as an Australian but also as a proud Aboriginal woman, proud of my heritage and culture,” Ms Peris said.  “I certainly understand the significance of this opportunity, and I am very honoured and humbled by this, Prime Minister.”

Senator Crossin, who has been a party supporter for thirty years and a Senator for fifteen appears ready to stage a fight against being replaced by a non-member and it is expected that some Territory branch members will also be angry that once again loyal Territorians are being kicked to the roadside in order to be the conscience of the Canberra elites:

Senator Crossin said the decision, which she was told of last night, was taken without consulting her or the territory branch of the Labor Party.  “It has been my long-held belief that preselection should always be a matter for NT Labor branch members to decide,” she said in a statement.

The real issue at stake in this action is that in the last Territory election the Labor Party was smashed by Aboriginal voters siding with the CLP.  Gillard is tossing Crossin under the bus in order to try to shore up her support among indigenous communities.

Opposition to this move will fade within days.  Ever since the Whitlam government Labor supporters have come to an understanding that the party elite knows better than the local branches what’s best for them.  While they are often unhappy with the directives from above, they have adapted by learning to suck it up.

PPP surprise; Congress more popular than the clap

The people over at Public Policy Polling must have been having a moment of whimsy when planning this poll of Congress Vs a series of unpopular people, creatures, diseases, and countries such as France and North Korea.  (NK lost, France won.)

 

On the other hand they were less popular than cockroaches  although this is not all that surprising.  While both are rather odious, cockroaches are easier to get rid of, and don’t expect the public to comply with their wishes.  Donald Trump and Genghis Khan were also more popular, but both were inside the margin of error for the poll: 

Facing low approval ratings after a historically unproductive 112th session and a series of last-minute showdowns over fiscal matters, Congress is now less popular than root canals, NFL replacement referees, head lice, the rock band Nickelback, colonoscopies, carnies, traffic jams, cockroaches, Donald Trump, France, Genghis Khan, used-car salesmen and Brussel sprouts. 

 When asked if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things, voters said they had a higher opinion of root canals (32 for Congress and 56 for the dental procedure), NFL replacement refs (29-56), head lice (19-67), the rock band Nickelback (32-39), colonoscopies (31-58), Washington DC political pundits (34- 37), carnies (31-39), traffic jams (34-56), cockroaches (43-45), Donald Trump (42-44), France (37-46), Genghis Khan (37-41), used-car salesmen (32-57), and Brussels sprouts (23-69) than Congress. 

 Congress did manage to beat out telemarketers (45-35), John Edwards (45-29), the Kardashians (49-36), lobbyists (48-30), North Korea (61-26), the ebola virus (53-25), Lindsay Lohan (45-41), Fidel Castro (54-32), playground bullies (43-38), meth labs (60- 21), communism (57-23), and gonorrhea (53-28). 

 Congress’s overall favorability rating stands at just 9% favorable and 85% unfavorable. Women (13-81) view Congress slightly more favorably than men (6-89), as do Democrats (13-82) than Republicans (9-87), perhaps reflecting Democrats’ higher level of satisfaction with the recent fiscal cliff deal. ...

It is reasonable to suspect that respondents had a little fun with this one and that it should not be taken too seriously.  It is doubtful after all that Americans would prefer Pelosi to Lindsay Lohan, or Wassermann Shultz to Kim Kardashian.

Farage’s upbeat New Year address

Eric over at Libertarian Republican has made a good find, the New Year’s address by UKIP leader Nigel Farage giving an upbeat message of the party’s prospects for next year. Polling is now indicating that the party has replaced the British Liberal Democrats as the third party of choice there and is making significant progress with its moderate libertarian message.
 

 UKIP has made serious inroads into the support from both sides of the spectrum and moved into the mainstream of British politics, forcing both the Labour and Conservative leaders to respond, which gets them past the situation where smaller parties get ignored. It also leads to the possibility of the majors moving to adopt some of their policies, thus improving the whole.

 He has forecast campaigning on abolishing tax on the minimum wage and cutting the soul, employment, and business destroying red tape that overwhelms the private sector of the economy. Both are good red meat issues.

The statement on immigration negates the racist tag often thrown at them in attempts to tar them with the image of the BNP. While acknowledging the legitimacy of their desire to seek better lives, he rejects the unsustainable idea that they should have them at the expense of the British taxpayer through government handouts, free housing and jobless benefits.

 UKIP is a party with fairly strong libertarian principles, having absorbed some elements of the LPUK however the two should not be confused. LPUK can be found here:

Fat tax; Aussie food fascists want it, Danes drops it

The ‘Obesity Policy Coalition’ is trumpeting a survey indicating that most consumers want a ‘fat tax’ to stop them putting on weight.  The favorite reaction these days to anything deemed undesirable seems to be the idea of taxing someone, or something.  Polls though tend to tell whatever story the people paying for them want if the right questions or preamble is used.  No methodology is given in the report.

But still, the food fanatics, frantics, and fascists are convinced that taxes and government coercion will make us all thin again: 

AUSTRALIANS support a tax on unhealthy foods and many want a total ban on junk-food advertising, research has found - the same measures the food industry has claimed would be too unpopular to succeed. 

More than two-thirds of the 1500 primary grocery buyers surveyed were in favour of a tax, while traffic-light labelling on all packaged foods also received strong support. 

But the government has so far refused to implement the same measures that are supported by the public, while the peak body for the food industry maintains ''traffic-light'' labelling of food by healthiness would not work. A leader of the Cancer Council of Victoria study, Jane Martin, said researchers were surprised that nearly 90 per cent of respondents had agreed that food manufacturers should be forced to cut fat, sugar and salt levels in processed foods. 

''I was shocked at the high public support for regulation, yet that sentiment is not something that has come through so far in this debate,'' said Ms Martin, of the Obesity Policy Coalition. ''That comes down to the power of [the food] industry, who have lobbied very hard against regulation.” …

Generally if questions are asked with sufficient references to some problem that has been highlighted frequently enough in the media as a serious ‘social problem’, an ‘epidemic’, ‘national disgrace’, or perhaps, a ‘looming health crisis’, then the persons interviewed tend to feel the heavy weight of expectation that they should, as responsible socially conscious citizens, be prepared to agree that a solution is needed.  This is normally the one that is helpfully offered at the time.

Others tend towards some misguided altruistic desire to be punished for the good of all, some are so self righteous that they believe only others will be affected, and more believe that the government has a responsibility to keep them trim, taut, and terrific, and if that means a tax, then so be it.

Curiously the Danes are abandoning their fat tax.  Europeans winding back the nanny state is a real turn-up for the books: 

Danish lawmakers have killed a controversial "fat tax" one year after its implementation, after finding its negative effect on the economy and the strain it has put on small businesses far outweigh the health benefits. 

Nations including Switzerland, the U.K, and Germany have held up the tax, which applies to any food containing more than 2.3% saturated fat, as a potential model for addressing obesity and other health concerns. But in Denmark, it has been a source of pain for consumers, food producers and retailers as the nation's economy struggles. 

"The fat tax is one of the most maligned we [have] had in a long time," Mette Gjerskov, the minister for food, agriculture and fisheries, said during a news conference Saturday announcing the decision to dump the tax. "Now we have to try improving the public health by other means." 

The failure of Denmark's fat tax is a demonstration of how difficult it can be to modify behavior by slapping additional duties on products seen by many as essential staples, especially during tough economic times. Products such as butter, oil, sausage, cheese and cream were subject to increases of as much as 9% immediately after the new tax was enacted. 

"What made consumers upset was probably that an extra tax was put on a natural ingredient," said Sinne Smed, a professor at the Institute of Food and Resource Economics. …

Newspoll has a problem

Cartoon: By Pickering 

Recent movements in Newspoll don’t seem to make any sense and are not reflect in other polling during the same timeframe.  While others have been relatively constant since the start of September, Newspoll has fluctuated wildly, from having the Coalition up 55-45%, then even, then Coalition up 54-46%, then in the latest, even again. 

There are two indications that the results are wrong, the first being the lack of movement in other polls.  The second is the lack of movement in the vote for the Greens despite actual results in recent elections indicating a drop in support for them.  They were soundly thrashed in the New South Wales local authority elections, and then lost three of their four seats in the Australian Capital Territory election.

After rushing to claim that Abbott had run out of puff, today political pundits came out in force to claim in unison that Gillard successfully painting Abbott as a sexist or misogynist caused the result.  This has to be treated with scepticism owing to the absence of news on the issue as Labor tried to deal with its budgetary problems, boat arrivals, and an unaffordable ‘Asian Century’ white paper.

 It is also negated by a new Newspoll on ‘Tony Abbott sexist behaviour’, which seems to indicate that it is only an issue along party lines, essentially Labor plus a bit (probably Greens) thinks he is, while Coalition thinks he isn’t.  This makes sense, as the Gillard misogyny speech was essentially a histrionic response to Abbott’s criticism of the government’s defence of Peter Slipper, a lecherous old coot accused of sexual harassment, whose tweets on female genetalia made him infamous. 

Rudd likely to oust Gillard

 A new poll touted as indicating that Labor could win under Kevin Rudd is only the latest setback for Julia Gillard who is battling the growing disillusionment in Labor ranks with her inept decision making, along with the Thompson and Slipper scandals.  While the poll only represents three ‘key marginal’ electorates, it is significant that a left wing union is asking the question, and that it has been ‘leaked’.

Rudd was tossed out of the leadership when unions and labor MPs came to the conclusion that the party had little chance of winning under his continuing leadership.  Any nostalgia for Rudd is likely to be short lived and similar in nature to the George Bush ‘Miss me yet’ posters in the States.  It is telling that out of the whole Labor caucus, Rudd who has been tried and rejected is the only person considered for the job.

Gillard’s leadership has been such a disaster that the ‘drovers dog’ could do better: 

… A Rudd return would boost Labor's primary vote by 18 per cent in Blair, 15 per cent in Moreton and 9 per cent in Greenway. 

In Deakin, in Ms Gillard's home state of Victoria, Mr Rudd boosts Labor's primary vote by only one point. Under Ms Gillard, Labor is already on track to win the seat, lifting its two-party-preferred lead to 53-47 per cent compared with 52.4-47.6 at the 2010 election. 

According to the poll of 450 people in each of the four seats, Mr Rudd is more popular than Ms Gillard with Labor voters, men, women and both sexes over the age of 40. 

Mr Rudd's primary vote of 47 per cent among men outpolls Ms Gillard's 34 per cent by 13 points. With women, Mr Rudd's 49 per cent primary vote compares with 40 per cent for Ms Gillard. 

Mr Rudd (59 per cent) also polled 17 per cent higher than Ms Gillard (42 per cent) among swinging voters. He held double-digit leads over Ms Gillard in other demographics, including trade-qualified, university-educated, union member, people earning less than $80,000, people identifying themselves as being under financial pressure, and people with children at home. …   

It is difficult to assess why those three electorates were chosen, as currently around 60-70% of Labor seats could be described as marginal, and any seat it could lose can be described as ‘key’ as any loss would put them out of government.

One advantage Rudd would have over Gillard is that Conroy, Roxon, Plibersek, Crean, and others would refuse to serve under him, which is a big plus.  Treasurer, Wayne Swan has criticized Rudd but is uncommitted on serving him.  He would most likely serve as having no leadership potential of his own, it is his only option.  Peter Garret has said he wouldn’t serve under Rudd, but it is uncertain whether this is his own decision or Rudd’s.

Johnson Campaign asks D.C. Federal Court to Intervene in Presidential Debates

Argues Former New Mexico Governor Has Met Criteria

Citing survey data showing former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has in fact achieved the narrow criteria required for inclusion in the Monday debate, earning more than 40 percent of the vote in "head-to-head" polls against President Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party nominee's campaign today filed a complaint in Federal Court in the District of Columbia maintaining that Johnson has, in fact, met the Commission on Presidential Debates' criteria for inclusion. The complaint asks the Court to compel the CPD to include Johnson.

"The CPD requirements say Johnson 'must register support of at least 15 percent of the vote in five recent polls,'" Johnson campaign counsel Alicia Dearn said in a statement. "Nowhere does it say those polls must include three candidates. Indeed, the polls used by the CPD to exclude Johnson test only two candidates even though Gov. Johnson is on the ballot in 48 states. We argue that Gov. Johnson has met the specific and narrow criteria laid out by the CPD.

"Included in the two-party 'deal' struck by the Republicans and Democrats are the criteria by which candidates are invited to participate. As a two-term governor who is on more than enough states' ballots to be elected in the Electoral College, the decision to exclude Gov. Johnson can only be based upon the CPD's self-determined polling criterion — using polls that are 'head-to-head' surveys between Romney and Obama. Who decided that? The CPD rules do not specify the number of candidates to be tested in the poll. Using their own methodology, polls that ask voters' preferences between the President and Gov. Johnson are equally valid, and as we have demonstrated, will show more than enough support for Gov. Johnson to meet the CPD's arbitrary 15 percent requirement. The same would clearly be the result when Gov. Johnson is surveyed against only Gov. Romney. Nowhere does it say that only the Republican and the Democrat should be pitted against one another," Dearn said.

"It must be repeated that the official-sounding Commission on Presidential Debates is not official at all. It is a private organization created by the Republican and Demo cratic Parties for the clear and admitted purpose of controlling the presidential debate process. Everything from the schedule to the participants to the water glasses on stage are determined by way of an MOU between the two parties, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Two debates have already happened, and have excluded Gov. Johnson. We can't change that — no matter how unfair. However, the CPD has one last opportunity to do the right thing for Monday night's debate, which we have asked them to do via a letter transmitted Thursday. However, we are not holding our breath for an answer, and have asked the Federal Court to help them do the right thing. Also, we make it clear in our complaint that this issue does not end Monday night, and that it is not just about Gov. Johnson. We are also asking for a permanent injunction to require that the CPD's criteria be changed for future elections to correct the organization's fundamental unfairness.

"The American people need to understand that the presidential debates are televised productions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Nothing more. And those productions are designed to exclude alternative voices and ignore the simple fact that one-third of the electorate does not belong to their exclusive clubs."

A copy of the Johnson campaign's complaint and letter to the CPD are available here. 

For more information about Gary Johnson, go to www.garyjohnson2012.com. 

Vice Presidential debate 2012

The first impressions of Paul Ryan’s performance in the debate were of a young guy holding his own against a vastly older and more experienced opponent.  Joe Biden, despite his reputation for gaffes and own goals is a solid political performer, and should be.  He has done nothing else for over forty years.  Ryan however, came off fairly well in his own right with Biden only getting a couple of scores off him.

Had Biden chosen to do so, he could have adopted the persona of the friendly and experienced older man quietly putting the young upstart in his place, but instead decided to treat him with contempt, disdain, and with condescension.  Not a good look unless he could win decisively.  Instead he failed to land any serious knock out blows and thus came out of it as a guy who has a silly grin and giggles

He has come out of it as an accomplished liar with a couple of identifiable whoppers that have already been mentioned on a number of sites, namely that he voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the Administration knew nothing of requests for beefed up security in Benghazi.  Ryan should have picked him up on this.  Whether it becomes an issue will now depend on the willingness of the media to publicize it, which is doubtful.

Where Ryan did best was in accepting that the Republican base was already in his corner and playing to the undecided voters in order to get them on side.  Biden on the other hand had no such guarantee after his boss fumbled the ball and had to speak to his own waverers.  The GOP probably gained the most from this.

All in all, Ryan came out of it better than expected, demonstrating ability in foreign policy, which was supposed to be Biden’s ball game, as well as faring well in his own area of economics.  His points on the need for military strength were good, but needed to be presented more forcefully.  Still, he managed to get across the way in which Obama in attempting appeasement and to appear to be non-threatening to America’s enemies has put the US in danger.

Barry Goldwater put it better in his acceptance speech with:

“Failures proclaim lost leadership, obscure purpose, weakening will, and the risk of inciting our sworn enemies to new aggressions and to new excesses.”

Polling done after the debate should give the GOP comfort with the CNN poll giving it to Ryan by 48-44%, however CNN gain comfort by pointing out that this is within the poll’s margin of error and declaring it a tie.  Go figure.