Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, January 17, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 994)
News, World

asian pivot

The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft carried approximately 400 U.S. military and Royal Thai Armed forces directly from Alaska to jump into Thailand as part of Exercise Cobra Gold 14, an annual Thai-U.S. co-sponsored joint and multinational exercise. (Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Crista Mary Mack, U.S. Army)

This past weekend, the first U.S. military boots hit central Thailand soil to kick off the official change in military and foreign policy, known as the Asia pivot. Experts say the move was undoubtedly aimed to flex military muscle at Beijing, an show of U.S. power projection amid China developing ballistic missiles designed to destroy the U.S.-Pacific fleet.

As part of the annual multinational joint exercise dubbed Cobra Gold, a U.S. airborne unit drill executed a jump to seize and secure an airfield at Lop Buri, which is 90 miles north of Bangkok, simulating U.S. military responses to a humanitarian disaster. The exercise involved 400 parachutists from 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, which is based at Fort Richardson outside of Anchorage, Alaska.

The decision to co-execute military drills in the Pacific with Thailand as part of the Asia Pivot, was no accident. The presence of U.S. troops on the ground, particularly in Thailand which China views as their backyard and has clashed with on a series of instances over the decades, will be unacceptable for Beijing. The communist-led PRC, or People’s Republican of China, absolutely resents America’s 60-year dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, specifically our involvement with Thailand, the Korean Peninsula and Japan.

“It’s a powerful message that the U.S. is putting boots on the ground because they have the entire U.S. military standing behind them. Every country in the region recognizes that,” said retired General Jack Keane, a national security analyst and former acting U.S. Army chief of staff. The move was also meant to calm U.S. regional allies and demonstrate a commitment to their security.

“We’ve put parachuting forces into places and taken an amount of risk before and the U.S. will continue to do that,” Keane added.

Ironically, the Chinese are actually participating in the eight-nation exercise for the first time this year, and the invitation is outrightly viewed to be a token gesture toward the regional power that the exercises are aimed at. Before Cobra Gold began, a Chinese military official arrogantly stated while talking to the state-run media that Beijing’s “regional military impact cannot be ignored.”

And in truth, the U.S. is concerned over decisions by Beijing to drastically ramp up defense spending, which is increasing at 10 percent every year. China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) — known as the “Carrier Killer” — that can strike U.S. aircraft carriers and other vessels at a range of 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers).

It is estimated that the missile can travel at Mach 10 (4-5km/sec) and reach its maximum range in less than 12 minutes.

Because the U.S. has not yet addressed the systems necessary to combat the “Carrier Killers” developed by the Chinese, though Congress is now working on a bipartisan proposal for a rapid development of new military systems to intercept the ASBMs, the Asian Pivot is relying upon the 4-25 to begin the Pacific projection.

“This mission in Thailand is the very start of that,” said LTC, Alan Brown, spokesman for U.S. Army, Alaska. “4-25 helps spearhead the combat readiness for America’s new Asia posture because their geographic reach extends more than any other over such diverse and extreme terrain and weather conditions.”

The brigade can deploy infantry soldiers anywhere in the region within 19 hours from “the phone call to being on the ground.” It is supported by a Stryker brigade, whose tactical vehicles can be flown in to bolster the advance forces within two to four days.

In military parlance, its combat readiness is considered part of America’s standard battle rhythm. And, as the brigade’s additional training with their Thai colleagues is intended to show this weekend, it doesn’t mean that America would need to enter into a fight in the Asia-Pacific on its own.

“If we do get into some kind of conflict or rapid engagement in the Asia-Pacific,” added Brown, ”then the U.S. is going to do it in full lockstep with its partner nations.”

It was a cold exercise between the two countries, indeed. The Chinese send just 17 observers during Cobra Gold, while the U.S. sent 9,000.

This past weekend, the first U.S. military

News, Politics, Video

On “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace, former Bush advisor and “architect” Karl Rove ripped former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) for his hypercritical attacks on Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ). While shadowing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is head of the Republican Governors Association, Strickland said either Christie knew about the bridge scandal “and is lying, or he is the most inept, incompetent chief executive imaginable.”

Rove, rather than making the typical Obama comparison, instead opted to bring up the little-covered scandal that took place when Ted Strickland was the governor of Ohio. Someone from the governor’s office leaked personal, sensitive information about then-Obama critic “Joe the Plumber,” in an effort to derail his congressional campaign.

“I think the Democrats would be better off picking another voice against Chris Christie,” Karl Rove responded, teeing up his following comment.

“Let’s go back to 2008 and Joe the Plumber. Gov. Strickland’s own appointee, as head of the Employment Commission, was found to be accessing confidential government databases in order to find out confidential information — private information — about Joe The Plumber and leaking it to the press,” Rove noted.

“Now is Gov. Strickland, to adopt his standard, either incompetent or lying simply because it was his appointee who did these things?” Rove quipped. “Let’s be careful before throwing stones at Gov. Christie,” insinuating they are petrified the New Jersey governor would defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever the Democratic presidential nominee turns out to be.

Former Gov. Ted Strickland was absolutely blindsided, stuttering and struggling to defend the leak and his own hypocrisy. When he couldn’t rebut Rove, he decided to try to lie by falsely claiming the never even happened and there was never a leak. Further, he ironically first answered by patting himself on the back over the appointee leaving his administration.

However, we know there was a leak and that it was a politically motivated abuse of power. It wasn’t even debatable, as Strickland’s “ums” and “uhs” told the tale, entirely.

Karl Rove repeatedly hammered him, pressing him on where the leak came from, with stutters drawing out of Strickland who was clearly caught of guard. “Where did the leak come from governor? Who from your office leaked that information about Joe the Plumber?” Rove questioned.

The former Ohio governor never did give a satisfactory answer for how his scandal differed from Gov. Christie’s scandal, so let me help him out.

Both the bridge closing at Ft. Lee and the leaking of a private citizen’s sensitive information are abuses of power. However, at the very least, New Jersey Gov. Christ Christie held those we know to be responsible accountable, and admitted it was in fact an abuse of power. Further, wrong or right, bridge authority is an actual legitimate police power, whereas whomever leaked the information about Joe the Plumber decided to act outside the bounds of government authority, altogether.

Further, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who was ousted in the 2010 elections by now-popular Gov. John Kasich because his people thought he was incompetent, never even admitted the scandal took place, and certainly made no attempt to publicly hold anyone accountable. Instead, he took the typical Democratic talking point position; rely on a complacent media to tell citizens to “move along, nothing to here.”

Strickland and the Democratic Party would do well to take the advice of Karl Rove, and find another mouthpiece hack to attack Gov. Christie because, he is a shameful hypocrite who has publicly shown himself to willing to do anything to get back what little relevance and power he once had, which came along with being a longtime Clinton “who know what” rider.

VIDEO: On "Fox News Sunday" with Chris

Opinion

Republican-EstablishmentThese days, the Republican establishment is taking issue and fracturing its own party over compromise.

A lack of compromise is what the GOP and the Democrat Party perceive as a threat to the way of doing business in Washington. We hear it a lot that “government” is broken and “extremists” in the right wing of the GOP are the ones responsible for all the bad things that are going on up on the Hill. They point to obstructionist conservatives as the reason that nothing is getting done.

Should the Tea Party compromise its principles so it can get along better with the progressive left wing?

What you don’t hear, is where the American people fit insofar all of this.

The Tea Party and other conservative interests, represent a real threat to the power brokers in the GOP. They know it is the Tea Party taking their power away by replacing them in the primaries. The Republican establishment does not care that liberal elements and the DNC are damaging America daily. They aren’t running for the same seats – the Tea Party is. That’s why conservatives are the threat, rather than liberals.

Compromise is important to getting good legislation passed, but you should only compromise on the details of legislation, not the principles behind them. The Republican establishment has forgotten that,  in the heat of the battle to keep control and power. They would rather give away our American freedoms to the left, than give away their seats to the Tea Party. That’s why they fight so hard against their own, instead of warring with the progressive left.

It makes no difference if America is a socialistic, compromised product—it only makes a difference if they are in power. To the Republican establishment, left and right are merely semantics as to who are in control of the power of government. To the American people and the conservatives of course, it means something else. This is why you can easily see that conservatives represent the truth since they have no horse in this race.

In this fight, truth is the only thing we can be sure of. In fact, truth, in the end, is the only thing worth fighting for. When you expose political discourse to the rigors of truth and facts, people who defend the status quo get agitated and are exposed for what they are and begin to strike back at those that defend it.

Where would this country be had our founding fathers compromised with King George? We would no doubt be a backwater province in the crumbling English empire. Where would it be had we compromised with the evil of Nazism and settled our differences with Japan? The United States would be likely speaking a different language today.

Truth must always be defended and when you do, many casualties will be incurred. Seats in Congress will change hands, lives and careers will be destroyed or irrevocably changed. History has shown us that the defense of liberty and the American way of life is almost always fraught with political and personal peril. Conservative leaders cannot capitulate to convenience and power brokers, and still stay defenders of the American people against progressivism.

This is the burden we conservatives must bear in order to prevent that fate from happening to our country.

As Shakespeare once said, do we suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or do we take arms against a sea of troubles?

Thomas Purcell is a nationally syndicated columnist and host of the Liberty Never Sleeps podcast hour and author of “Shotgun Republic.”

Opinion: The Republican establishment has forgotten that

News, Politics

uaw vote

File – In this July 31, 2012, file photo, an employee works on a Passat sedan at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. (Credit: AP/Erik Schelzig, file)

Though the group suffered a series of defeats in the region over recent years, the UAW vote at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga was the worst defeat yet for the United Auto Workers. The defeat was devastating not only because the UAW had staked its southern strategy on winning at the Tennessee plant, which rejected them 712 to 626, but also because it validated what has been an observable trend for some time.

Supporters and labor leaders blamed threats and intimidation by politically motivated third parties for turning the UAW vote against them, but in truth the vote result was predictable. Unfortunately for the unions, it appears that they have yet to fully grasp the gravity of their problem.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the UAW vote a narrow loss and characterized it as a “minor setback” that won’t result in “permanent defeat.”

It is ironic that union officials admit private-sector workplaces have been the most difficult to infiltrate in recent decades, because they are the ones who once filled their entire purpose for being, while even progressive hero President Roosevelt opposed public sector unions. But the truth of the matter is that Americans’ views on organized labor unions have soured, with negative perceptions and decreased confidence mirroring their loss of membership.

Last year, the proportion of the workforce represented by unions was just 11.3 percent, which was about the same as it was in 2012, but way down from around 20 percent in 1983. Private-sector membership is even worse, with a rate of just 6.7 percent, compared with 35.3 percent in the public sector.

Similarly, according to their annual Confidence in Institutions poll, Gallup tracking has found a consistent drop in Americans’ confidence in organized labor unions, a group that is now only slightly more popular than much-hated HMOs.

In total, just 20 percent of Americans have confidence in organized labor unions, including 12 percent of Republicans, 17 percent of independents and even just 37 percent of Democrats. In fact, Americans have slightly more confidence in big business than they do unions. The trend shows increasing confidence in big business and decreasing confidence in organized labor.

“Well, you know, I think at one time they were very useful. But now, I don’t know that you get that much benefit from them,” said Steve, the father of a quality control manager at the plant who voted “no.” He withheld his name, consequently, because he was afraid of retaliation from the unions. “When they first came in, it was a good thing, because workers were really getting taken advantage of. But it’s not so much the case anymore.”

That is the sentiment coming from most Americans, who are also deeply concerned over the Detroit bankruptcy, and it doesn’t end with the automotive industry or the United Auto Workers union. “It wasn’t just a loss for the UAW, it was a loss for the AFL-CIO and the entire labor movement,” said Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. “They have a product they’re selling and people aren’t buying it.”

The UAW had counted their chickens before they hatched, as the union had already begun to employ the Volkswagen organizing model to a Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama. Following the defeat, however, there’s not a whole lot of momentum or pressure to move forward with it, because as Professor Chaison put it, “people aren’t buying it.” Yet it isn’t just in the South where unions are losing in their effort to seize power, but in places traditionally deemed union-friendly.

Perhaps, with reality catching up to them, unions have worn out their welcome in these traditionally union-run regions, so they have little choice but to tap southern prosperity in a last ditch effort to survive and remain relevant.

In Illinois, teachers’ unions are threatening to bankrupt the state over collective bargaining and pensions, which even the liberal Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has found himself under attack from, while struggling to manage the state’s coming debt crisis. Both states are looking like unfriendly territory for Democrats in 2014.

On our 2014 Senate Map Predictions on PeoplesPunditDaily.com, we were the first to rate the Michigan Senate race a “Toss-Up,” a rating that has proven to always have been correct and followed by other once-skeptical pundits, such as Crystal Ball and Cook Political Report. When we look at the data pre and post-bankruptcy, the trend was and is clear. Land is leading in the polls because Michiganders are fed-up with Democratic recklessness,  union greed and joint corruption.

Similarly, on the 2014 Governor Map Predictions on PeoplesPunditDaily.com, Gov. Rick Snyder is leading because of the way he handled the union friendly, Democratic policy-induced financial crisis. The Michigan gubernatorial race is rated “Likely Republican” on the map, which may provide coattails enough to send Land to Washington. In Illinois, which is rated “Leans Republican” on our 2014 Governor Predictions Map, incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn is trailing all of his potential Republican opponents outside of the margin of error, fueled in large by his sweetheart treatment of unions.

Union power is waning, and they know it, which is why they have pushed to lead a new effort to appeal to non-traditional union jobs, such as taxi drivers and domestic workers. However, if they cannot hold on to power in friendly midwestern states, then it is far less likely that they will be successful at penetrating the South. If they couldn’t win at Volkswagen, then it validates the notion they are running out of soil they could viably see as fertile.

“There is no use getting around it, it’s devastating,” said Nelson Lichtenstein , a labor historian at the University of California at Santa Barbara in reacting to the Volkswagen UAW vote. “Here’s a place where more or less the company was in fact genuinely neutral, and the union lost.”

We will all have some analysis to offer following this and future UAW votes (as well as other unions), but reality is the enemy of the unions now. Worker Mike Jarvis, who was among the group at the Volkswagen plant that organized to fight the UAW aggression, underscored the problem the union faces.

“Look at every company that has went bankrupt or shut down or had an issue,” he said. “What is the one common denominator with all those companies? UAW. We don’t need it.”

The UAW vote at a Volkswagen plant

News, World

human rights violations

FILE – This Oct. 30, 2013 file photo shows Jin hye Jo wiping a tear as she testifies during a hearing of the United Nations mandated Commission of Inquiry about the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in Washington. Her father was tortured in detention in North Korea and died. Her elder sister went searching for food during the great famine of the 1990s, only to be trafficked to China. Her two younger brothers died of starvation, one of them a baby without milk whose life ebbed away in her arms (AP)

A new United Nations report due out Monday will call for an international criminal investigation into human rights violations by the oppressive-leftist North Korean regime.

The three-member panel has found evidence of myriad crimes, such as “extermination,” crimes against humanity, against starving populations and a widespread campaign of abductions of individuals in South Korea and Japan.

Disgracefully, the communist-led China, the longtime North Korean ally, is reportedly prepared to block any proposal to refer the human rights violations to the International Criminal Court.

The three-member panel, headed-up by retired Australian judge Michael Kirby, was set up by the UN human rights body last March in what was the most significant step attempt to investigate evidence of severe and repeated human rights violations in the leftist, despotic regime.

Political prisons camps, or internment work-camps, have killed hundreds of thousands of people just in the 1990s, alone.

The report concludes that the testimony and other information it received, “create reasonable grounds … to merit a criminal investigation by a competent national or international organ of justice.”

But the North Korean regime is blatantly denying and not accepting the report’s findings.

A spokesman for North Korea’s U.N. Mission in New York told the AP: “We totally reject the unfounded findings of the Commission of Inquiry regarding crimes against humanity. We will never accept that.”

The commission, which conducted public hearings with more than 80 victims and other witnesses in Seoul, Tokyo, London and Washington, recommended that the U.N. Security Council refer its findings to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. They were not allowed into North Korea for the investigation.

Aside from opposition from China, another hurdle for the commission is that the court’s jurisdiction does not cover crimes committed before July 2002, prior to its statute.

But the commission recommends that the U.N. General Assembly and the Human Rights Council should extend the mandate of special human rights violations in North Korea, and proposes the Geneva-based council help ensure accountability, in particular regarding crimes against humanity, that would build on evidence and documentation the commission has investigated.

The commission will formally present its findings to the rights council on March 17, and the 48-member body will likely consider which of the report’s recommendations it wants to support.

A new United Nations report due out

Opinion, Video

I have long argued, as our founders did, that education and knowledge are essential to preserving liberty in a society governed by a popular-based government. The principle is simple: If we are ignorant to the ways and nature of government by men, then we are unable to understand the dangers posed by big government, we become easily susceptible to its false promises and blind to its true motivations.

Black History Month will come and go, again, but what will remain is the truly tragic condition of the black community and its stubborn support of the Democratic Party. That is, unless conservatives step up and change it.

In this episode of ZoNation, Zo looks at what Carter G. Woodson was celebrating when he pioneered “Negro History Week,” the precursor to Black History Month. Zo asks the very hard, yet simple question: “Has more of the black community become what Carter envisioned as a cause for celebration?”

Is there anyone, any black leader who will stand up to make the argument that the black community is headed in the right direction, with skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birthrates, chronic high unemployment and government dependence? We will get back to the issue of education in a moment, but first let’s look at black Americans’ generally negative perception of their role in U.S. society that took a dive under President Obama in Gallup tracking.

Since the Great Society, there has been a negative downward trend on the perception of race relations between white and black Americans. Under President Bill Clinton, those negative perceptions intensified, with a particularly large, disturbing dip occurring from 1995 to 1996, when the country was racially polarized by the affirmative action debate following the 1994 trial of O.J. Simpson. Then, something magical began to happen.

black-history-month

Under President George W. Bush, who won an extraordinarily high percentage of the black vote in battleground states for a Republican candidate in 2004, there was a significant reversal from a negative trend to a positive trend in race relations in America. Suddenly, the amount of black Americans who said the U.S. was a racially just society began to increase, fueled by a first-time majority of black men expressing satisfaction in the fairness of U.S. society toward black citizens.

Though black women, particularly older black women, lagged behind both younger and older black men, they slowly but surely followed the trend under the tenure of George W. Bush. As we can see from the chart above, the progress made in race relations was all but erased under President Obama, though levels are starting to recover. But according to Gallup, the increased positive view stems from a different, more sinister sentiment; a sentiment among blacks that those now in power are “their guys,” and will implement policies of social retribution disguised and couched in the rhetoric of social justice.

Is that what progress looks like for the black community?

All of the economic and socioeconomic data strongly suggest the answer to all is no. But much to the fault of Republicans, black voters and citizens at large are unaware of the damage Democrat-controlled governance has had on their communities, though voters in such places as Detroit and New Orleans are showing a slight break with their Democratic traditions.

One of the first actions taken by President Obama was to use his “pen” to sign an executive order that took choice away from black parents, while empowering the teachers’ unions who are trapping their children in failed school systems. Under the direction of the first black president, despite the literal cries from black parents, the first black attorney general Eric Holder sued the state of Louisiana over their scholarship school choice program.

The program is a successful program that works, and we know it works. Yet the all-power and all-knowing federal government under Democratic control cannot afford to lose union support or black voters who are trapped on the Democratic plantation, eager to vote for a party’s candidates who promise them a meager existence.

While the accusations of racism hurled by liberals toward the Tea Party and other conservative groups are wildly inaccurate smokescreens, it is true that the Republican Party has been grossly negligent in reaching out to our black brothers and sisters in liberty.

We cannot and will not make false promises, such as taking care of citizens’ everyday needs or ending all racism by establishing an impossible utopia, which is to be run by a bunch of politicians who pretend to care about their constituencies. But we can make some real promises, and we can keep them.

We can promise an education system that won’t trap your children in failing schools, because we care more about financial contributions to campaign coffers from teachers who fail to prepare kids and give them the skills they need to succeed in American society.

We can promise that conservative, small government lawmakers are the only government officials with the appetite to reform mandatory sentences for non-violent crimes, which too often deny your families the ever-important male role models needed for your children to reach their full potential. The horrific truth about big government, is that the needs of the state are ever-changing, which prevents any loyalty to communities of any color.

We can promise that under “progressive” Democratic big government, those needs will change, and God help you when the time comes that those needs must be fulfilled at the expense to your community. We are already witnessing this terrible truth, with abortion clinics readily available in black communities despite their risks because, whether it is acceptable to say or not, it is cheaper to allow a single black (or white) mother to kill her baby than it is to pay for big government’s promise to assume the cost associated with parenthood.

We can promise integrity that no one, no one will be able to take away from you. It is the kind of integrity Frederick Douglas yearned for, which only comes from delayed gratification, working and becoming a self-sufficient human being with a strong family.

We can promise you liberty of mind and body, so that you may be free to think and act as you please, so long as you harm no other citizen by your actions. We can promise liberty offers the opportunity to live more than the “meager existence” promised to black Americans in return for supporting the Democratic Party.

We can promise more than just surviving for as long as our weak economic and monetary system survives, but rather we promise a unified and strong community, which is the only environment conducive to harnessing the potential for material and spiritual prosperity.

These are the promises those whom we celebrate during Black History Month sought from our society for the black community, and conservatism offers the promise of opportunity to you now.

Richard D. Baris is the Creator of PeoplesPunditDaily.com and author of “Our Virtuous Republic: The Forgotten Clause in the American Social Contract”

Black History Month will come and go,

News, Politics, Video


Do conservatives need a new Republican Party? While my disagreements with Mark Levin are well-documented — both here and here, as well as various syndicated sites — we wholeheartedly agree the Republican Party stands for nothing, and also is run by those who have sold out a generally correct ideology. Further, they are inept and completely inadequate to take on a failed ideology hidden by a cunning Democratic Party.

It’s embarrassing. And while we watch them struggle to combat a politically astute big government, despotic party led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi, our country goes down the drain.

Mark Levin appeared on “Your World” with Neil Cavuto to talk about the out-of-control spending and the Republican Party’s capitulation and acceptance of defeat. Levin is correct, “we can walk and chew gum at the same time,” and we do not have to win elections before telling the American people their pensions and entire monetary system will collapse if we do not change course, destroying the future of our children and grandchildren.

We seem to get into this false sense of security, a dangerous mindset that rejects the very real and imminent threat from a debt crisis, which will undoubtedly leave citizens with far less freedom and prosperity that we inherited from our parents and grandparents.

But I digress. Listen to Mark Levin on “Your World” with Neil Cavuto.

While my disagreements with Mark Levin are

Opinion, Politics, Polls

Rasmussen-Reports

I have been debating whether or not to write this column for quite some time, but now the time has come to take Rasmussen Reports bias to task. Because Scott Rasmussen has parted ways with the public opinion enterprise he founded in 2003 over “disagreements” in business strategy, I find it to be a more agreeable and viable time to do so.

Many liberal pundits have accused Rasmussen Reports of polling bias, labeling them an inaccurate and conservative-driven polling company. The rhetoric and charges sound something akin to what you hear from conservatives regarding Public Polling Policy, otherwise known as the liberal pollster PPP. The truth, as usual, is something less cut and dry with Rasmussen Reports compared to PPP, though both firms have terrible track records.

In our model used to assess grades on the PPD Pollster Scorecard at PeoplesPunditDaily.com, we employ a similar strategy seen over at FiveThirtyEight.com for their pollster ratings. However, one major difference in analysis between our models is that they factor all polls issued by firms in the final three weeks of the campaign, while PPD examines a much longer period of time. The reason for this is simple: We want to know if a pollster is attempting to influence the narrative of the race early on, or creating an “air of inevitability” for one particular party’s candidate.

We examine past accuracy to assign the polling firm a rating from 1 to 4, which is then used to weigh the amount of influence the firm has on averages and statistically weaken the ability of one outlier poll to dramatically mislead us on the status of a race. A rating of 4, which is held by both Rasmussen Reports and Public Polling Policy (PPP), is the worst rating we assign to a polling firm.

(UPDATE: PPD now assigns actual letter grades after numerous requests to simplify for readers.)

Unlike PPP, who blatantly poll with the intention of creating a liberal agenda or an “air of inevitability” on targeted races, recent inaccuracy by Rasmussen Reports may be due to something different, altogether. Let’s look at a few different inaccuracies during different periods to 1) validate my claim they are in fact inaccurate, and 2) better articulate my point.

In 2004, much to their credit, Rasmussen Reports released some of the most accurate polls around. But in 2010, though they predicted huge Republican gains in the face of massive denial by other well-known pundits, their actual margins were way off on many individual races. When we examine final polling results without prejudice from individual races in 2010 it appears Rasmussen Reports leaned toward Republican candidates, with just 12 out of 105 surveys overestimating the margin for the Democratic candidate by 3 or more points.

That wouldn’t seem that terrible, if not for the 55 polls that overestimated Republican support by 3 or more points during the same election cycle. Overall, Rasmussen Reports missed the margin by just under 6 points on average throughout the midterm election cycle. That’s not an impressive record, at all. But it’s also not a reason to ignore their results, either.

However, in 2012 the overstating of Republican support remained and bias in Rasmussen Reports’ polls was much closer depending on the state, ending up somewhere in the neighborhood of Romney +3. Now, incredibly and surprisingly, the polling bias has swung far to the left–real far.

In the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial contest, Rasmussen Reports wasn’t even on the same planet, with their October 20 survey of 1000 likely voters showing Democrat Terry McAuliffe leading Ken Cuccinelli by a ridiculous 17-point margin. After receiving heavy criticism, even by those who conceded McAuliffe was likely leading by a modest margin, they released another poll eight days later showing a 7-point lead for the Democrat. McAuliffe barely held on to win that race by 2.5 points, underscoring the massive 10-point plus Rasmussen Reports bias toward the liberal candidate.

They performed better in their home state of New Jersey, understating Chris Christie’s support by just 2.3 points, and overstating Booker’s support by just 2 points. However, their presidential approval tracking poll has been indefensible.

Recently, Rasmussen Reports bias consistently favors and overestimates Obama’s support relative to other polling firms, particularly firms such as YouGov (frequently commissioned by The Economist) who have terrific track records of polling accuracy. Presidential tracking surveys conducted from Feb. 10 to Feb. 14 underscore the severity of the Rasmussen Reports bias. Let’s look at the table below and make some observations.

Pub. Date Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
14-Feb-14 -15 24% 39% 49% 50%
13-Feb-14 -20 23% 43% 44% 55%
12-Feb-14 -22 21% 43% 44% 55%
11-Feb-14 -20 21% 41% 44% 54%
10-Feb-14 -14 23% 37% 48% 51%

For tracking results from Feb. 10 to Feb. 14, President Obama’s overall presidential job approval rating according to Rasmussen Reports was 48 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval, or a spread of disapprove +3. This simply doesn’t jive with the average published finding dates, which are the dates shown above.

If the Feb. 10 to Feb. 12 average found a 44 percent to 55 percent disapproval spread of 11, which was just published on Feb. 13, it is statistically impossible for the Feb. 11 to Feb. 13 period to show a 49 percent approval rating to 50 who disapprove. Aside from the fact that Rasmussen’s tracking results have a 10.5 percent average disparity with comparable polling from Gallup and Fox News, the Feb. 13 release was a wild, wild swing from the previous day’s results.

We are literally talking about a 10-point swing over the course of one day in a model that supposedly averages findings over the tracking period of several days. Comparatively, Gallup rarely ever exceeds a swing of 3 points in a single day. Because tracking polls are conducted by averaging the results over a particular period of time, such as 3 or 5 days, significant swings are suspect.

Further, historically speaking, voter intensity drives the rare instances of drastic swings, but the reverse is true with Rasmussen. Though the voter intensity is clearly on the side of disapproval, there has never been one single day when we observed a 10-point swing against the president’s job approval as was the case in approval from Feb. 10 to Feb. 14.

So, what may be behind the clear shift in Rasmussen Reports bias toward the left?

Mike Boniello, the company’s CEO, took over for Scott Rasmussen until a permanent replacement is found following the 2012 election. Boniello and other company officials claim they still use the same polling methodologies they have employed for over a decade, but that clearly is not the case.

What we do know is that Scott Rasmussen left after they performed terribly during the 2012 election cycle, and that he claimed they had “disagreements” over strategy. Whether or not those “disagreements” had anything to do with the possible adoption of new polling methodologies that are more favorable to liberal candidates, we will never know for sure. But the data certainly suggest they did just that.

While liberal pundits have cited the Rasmussen

News, Politics

obama nominees

After a series of embarrassing confirmation hearings for less-than qualified Obama nominees, the American Foreign Service Association issued a major rebuke Friday. The group that represents America’s Foreign Service professionals is now urging the administration to set minimum qualification standards for its ambassadorial nominees.

“The topic of the qualifications of ambassadorial nominees is of great interest to AFSA’s membership,” The American Foreign Service Association said in a statement. “All Americans have a vested interest in ensuring that we have the most effective leaders and managers of U.S. embassies and missions advancing U.S. interests around the globe.”

The American Foreign Service Association have always held the position that ambassadorial nominees should largely be filled with career professionals, rather than political donors. However, the signal that the organization is sending shows a level of concern never before heard. They further announced Friday that the group will actually propose new guidelines for “the necessary qualifications and qualities” for diplomatic candidates.

The statement said the group has been “closely monitoring” recent confirmation hearings.

The remark was a reference to several problematic appearances by Obama donors who had been given diplomatic appointments in what appears to be payback for contributing money to the president. At confirmation hearings, they have shown little to no knowledge regarding the countries in which they were appointed to serve and would be residing in.

The less-than acceptable performances heightened concerns the Obama administration is appointing too many politically connected donors, and not enough Foreign Service professionals.

The American Foreign Service Association further fueled those concerns when it reported that a whopping 53 percent of Obama’s second-term appointments have been political.

Contrary to what many Americans might guess, the United States is one of only a few stable democratic nations that still give diplomatic posts as a way to reward political friends, and definitely not democracies as large as the Unite States. But historically, just less than a third of these appointments have been political payback, so to speak. For instance, former President Bill Clinton appointed 28 percent diplomatic posts that were political, while under former President George W. Bush it was 30 percent.

However, under President Obama, the number has shot up to 37 percent overall, and at this rate by the time he leaves office the number will likely be much higher.

Though this is a bipartisan practice, the performance during confirmation hearings of some of Obama’s latest picks has raised concerns that the United States may be sending the wrong message abroad.

Last week, his nominee to Argentina felt out said he’d never been there. The Obama nominee to Norway also incorrectly cited key facts about the Scandinavian nation at his confirmation hearing. George Tsunis referred to Norway’s “president,” even though the country is a constitutional monarchy.

Sen John McCain (R-AZ) said in response that it was particularly damaging abroad, noting how Tsunis’ answers are going viral on video in Norway.

 

Tsunis also downplayed the importance of the country’s Progress Party. In what could only be characterized as an embarrassing parental-like moment, Sen. McCain was forced to firmly remind him that the party is part of the center-right coalition government there.

Colleen Bradley Bell, who is a soap opera producer Obama nominated for ambassador to Hungary, could not answer when asked what America’s strategic interests are in that country.

Thus far, Obama has appointed at least 44 political bundlers, who are people who gather political contributions for a candidate. The 44 politically motivated appointments are already nearly the entire amount Bush appointed in his two full terms as president.

The cushy posts in western European countries, the Caribbean, and places like Singapore and Canada, typically are set aside for the politically connected nominees. France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy are a few of the most sought-after jobs.

“I would encourage people to give those who have had tougher hearings a chance to go to their countries and see what their tenure will entail,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said last Friday. “And the judgment can’t be made about how effective they’ll be or how appreciated they’ll be by the government until we have that happen.”

Psaki cited that many esteemed U.S. ambassadors have come from outside the Foreign Service career path, including former Vice President Walter Mondale in Japan, and Sargent Shriver in France.

The AFSA did acknowledge that some “outstanding ambassadors” have come from outside the ranks of Foreign Service professionals, but also that “individuals who have spent decades in the United States Foreign Service are uniquely qualified for the job of Ambassador given their years of training and hands-on experience.”

The statement suggested that the guidelines would seek to establish minimum qualifications for nominees, rather than rule out political nominations altogether.

Though the guidelines have technically been in the works for months, supposedly prepared by 10 ambassadors during eight presidential administrations, they have never pushed their implementation. The group’s Board of Governors recently adopted them, but whether the administration would remains unclear.

After a series of embarrassing confirmation hearings

News, Politics

House Democrats may have had a gloomy retreat in Cambridge, Massachusetts, coming to grips with reality that Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker of the House again after 2014. But embattled Senate Democrats aren’t ready to give up just yet.

In fact, Sens. Mark Begich (D-AK), Jeanne Sheehan (D-NH), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Key Hagan (D-NC), all are turning to the IRS for help with reelection. The Democratic senators figure that if they can’t defend their records and win reelection within the boundaries of constitutional government, well then they will use the IRS to target those who oppose their reelection.

“If they’re claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that’s what they should be doing,” Sen. Mark Begich told the Hill. “If it’s to give them cover so they can do political activity, that’s abusing the tax code. And either side.”

Americans for Prosperity, a group that plans to spend a ton of money to defeat these vulnerable Democrats and others, are at the top of the list for the despot Democrats. The pro-economic freedom group unveiled an ad buy Wednesday, attacking the Democrat for supporting ObamaCare.

Americans for Prosperity announced last week they will commence a $1.4 million TV ad campaign against Sen. Kay Hagan, who is trailing all of her potential Republican candidates and was an early supporter of ObamaCare. Sen. Mary Landrieu, also trailing in most bipartisan or nonpartisan surveys, will be on the receiving end of a $750,000 three-week ad campaign.

And the list goes on.

In November, the Treasury Department and the IRS drafted regulations to limit the political activities of conservative groups, though they ridiculously claim it is intended for both the right and left. The proposed regulations have attracted more than 23,000 comments from the outraged public, which according to the Internal Revenue Service is a record.

According to a new Fox News poll, a whopping two-thirds of Americans disagree with Obama’s assertion that the IRS is not corrupt. Clearly, though the House is all but lost, the Democrats are willing to do anything to keep their majority, including using the most-hated and feared agency of the federal government to retain power.

Will is be enough, considering the mountain the Democratic Party knows it must climb in order to avoid an even worse shellacking in 2014 than received in 2010?

The feeling and sentiment in Democratic Party circles will give all an idea.

“It’s not pessimism—just as it’s not optimism,” said Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the national finance chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It is cold, hard realism.”

Sens. Mark Begich (D-AK), Jeanne Sheehan (D-NH),

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe