According to Rebel Pundit, Alex Hayes, director of Mainstream Republicans of Washington State, distributed a list of preferred delegates to Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich supporters at this convention. The vast majority of these slates of delegates consisted of Romney supporters. This fact was not disclosed on the slate. Most disturbing was the letterhead on the slate–which prominently claimed the endorsements of the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns. In addition, Hayes verbally claimed that the Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich campaigns “agreed to work together” at the county convention. Such endorsements and agreements did not exist!  Indeed, the only campaign standing to benefit from the slate distributed by Alex Hayes was Mitt Romney’s.

**Update** We have received this photo of the proposed “Unity Slate,” Alex Hayes tried to persuade Washington voters to choose. The slate definitely appears to convey the slate is endorsed by Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

In this undercover video, Alex Hayes decried dishonesty in politics while attempting to lure Santorum supporters into casting ballots for Romney delegates. This is no way to treat so many hundreds of grassroots conservatives involved in politics for the first time.  His brazen attempt to fool those who aren’t professional politicos such as himself into handing over a massive win to his preferred candidate is disturbing.

Attending my first GOP caucus as a participant was an exciting experience.  I had some butterflies going in because I wouldn’t know anyone there and it was something new.  The experience was quite different from what I had expected.  I’d like to flesh out my overall impressions a little more fully.  For those who are old hands at caucuses, this may seem to be a pointless exercise.  I disagree.  I do think there is something to be learned from a novice.  Wearing my sociology hat, I hope to bring a play by play of the experience so new ideas can be gleaned from my observations.

I live in south Minneapolis and expected our caucus to be held in a small room with about twenty people.  Minneapolis is such a one-party area, of course Democratic, so I thought a smattering of people would come.  I was wrong.  The caucus was held in a small gym with several tables for the precincts to gather around.  Around each table were four chairs.  I presumed that meant the groups would be especially intimate.  They were, but my precinct had ten people and an observer.  Certainly appeared to b a much bigger turnout than they initially planned.

Our convener was a pleasant young guy who is active in the city party.  He had attended four years ago as a Ron Paul supporter and has been with the GOP ever since.  One other man had attended the GOP caucus previously.  Otherwise, the remaining eight of us were first-timers.  That was quite apparent when we got started.  None of us knew how the thing was supposed to be run, but we were all in good spirits about our foibles.

Before we got started, I watched as the people trickled into the room.  It was hardly a monochromatic, male dominated scene.  There were two conveners who were Somali, as well as a few Somali caucus-goers.  There were people of Middle Eastern descent.  There were a couple of African Americans.  There were East and Southern Asians too.  It wasn’t a group that could be considered stereotypical Republican at all, at least according to the media’s narrative.  About 40% of the group was female.

There wasn’t a single white male dressed in a business suit, certainly no one wore tails.  I didn’t see a Rich Uncle Moneybags’ top hat in the room.  There was not one person wearing Mr. Peanut monocles in the crowd.  Most of the people looked like they had just gotten off work and hurriedly dressed down for comfort.  What’s more, the crowd was also surprisingly young.  According to the Star Tribune editorial writers, Republicans are supposed to all be old white people with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

That wasn’t the demographic I was witnessing, at all.

Many of the twenty and thirty-somethings were attired in post-Punk/former rock musician/hipster Uptown outfits.  These young people were just as heated and adamant as anyone else at the gathering.  I saw several people who I believe were gay.  In fact, I’d say at least ten percent of those attending were gay like me.  (By the way, Marilyn Carlson Nelson, none of us were attacked by roving gangs of homophobic Christian thugs as you have previously suggested)  The room had an electric charge to it as the caucus was about to convene.

Our little band of ten was unique perhaps.  We had only two people who had previously caucused with the GOP.  The other eight caucus-goers were driven by some motivation to travel to this alien space, gather with people they didn’t know, and assert themselves as part of a political party.  Some of the members of our group referred to the Republican Party as though it were an entity outside of them.  They were at a Republican caucus but not yet comfortable as identifying as Republican.  I felt a little that way myself, even though I’ve been working for conservative causes for some time.  It was rather telling.

It would be natural for me to comment on our discussions at this point, but I will refrain.  This is an examination of what group dynamic existed and not a discourse on policy.  The group was quite informed on issues and our conversations were at times heated.  Unfortunately, much of what we talked about was those things we didn’t agree on.  Little was said about what we shared ideologically.  But, it was clear this group was motivated to oust those Democrats currently in power and to replace them with someone more conservative.  That was obvious.

Since this was such an unfamiliar group who hadn’t done this before, I believe our process wasn’t as clean and straight forward as it could have been.  It was very refreshing for a group of people who were new to the process to get their views heard without censor.  Knowing we could openly discuss conservative beliefs without some leftist caterwauling was a nice change.  We voted on party platform suggestions without rancor or deep dispute.  In spite of being strangers in a strange land, it was a productive and enlightening evening.

Upon reflection, there are a couple of things the caucus experience taught me.  First, the common narrative of Republicans being old, white, male, and rich is downright absurd.  Of all the things our entire group was, that caricature certainly wasn’t present.  This is important to understand because for a political party to grow, it must be something people can identify with.  Human beings tend to congregate among those with whom they feel most comfortable.  We are usually most comfortable with others like us.  The tired, false narrative of Republicans as fat cat, cigar-chomping bosses or hayseed hick troglodytes is simply a smear job by the left and the political elite.  We were a very mixed group with one driving desire; to save our country from the policies that are hurting it.

The second thing I got from the caucus is this party is deeply fractured.  Not fractured by those supporting Santorum or Paul.  It is not split by the libertarians or social conservatives.  The Republican Party is alienated within itself.  Between the lies and mischaracterizations by the media about conservatives and the social void of a cohesive party structure in the city, Republicans are divided from each other.  Democrats have become very good at creating a socio-political cohesion of their members and allies.  Republicans, at least in the city, have not.

That is not to suggest this is anyone’s fault.  Blame isn’t what we need going forward; it is ideas.

To create socio-political cohesion, Republicans must think about a couple of things.  How do we ‘fix’ the brand name?  How do we connect our supporters together into a kind of network that supports our ideas and spreads our message?  Now, I know many party regulars at this point are ready to throw me into the lake.  They have built networks of people in their area.  They have brand identification that isn’t sullied.  That is great and I applaud those who have done so.  But, we need to build up our membership and network all over, in the city, in the country, in all suburban areas.

So, I propose two things to get started.  First, we should take advantage of newcomers to things like caucuses to revitalize membership.  We never really talked about the things the group agreed with as Republicans, or neophyte party supporters.  Part of the discussion should be those political ideas that unite us.  Starting the caucus with saying the Pledge of Allegiance was a good thing.  I found it quite heartwarming.  But, then when our group convened it was a discussion about delegates, candidates, party planks, and our differences on those things.  We never got to talk about why we were there which was ostensibly to kick out Obama and as many progressive/socialists as we can.  We never really created any social cohesion and at the end, we shook hands and drifted out into the night back to our own lives.

I understand the caucuses are not designed to be party rallies and social gatherings.  But, I believe injecting a bit of that into the mix could help create some connections.  Those connections would become networks along which human interaction would grow and thrive.  Developing rapport among one another is crucial for building relationships that will support our cause and spread our message.

I think we should also consider other kinds of activities for party members.  I don’t know enough election law to determine what these could be, but the Democrats have us all out-gunned on creating socio-political support groups.  We have groups which support conservative causes but there isn’t enough interaction or coordination.  Is there a way we could do more outreach into communities?  Can we make more forays into community events, not just as a political entity but as charitable arms identified with the party?  Republicans and conservatives believe deeply in volunteerism and helping others without using the government.  Perhaps there are ways we could openly practice that ideal more in the public eye.

I have to say I was deeply moved by the experience.  I will continue working with and in the Republican Party, hopefully making it a more vital part of the state.  My impressions of the caucuses were overall very positive.  I do like to learn from any situation I find myself in.  Perhaps my little navel-gazing exercise may have some ideas we can use as a group.  I came away from this meeting with the two impressions I had of the caucuses.  I am extremely proud to be affiliated with a group that is interesting and informed.  I found the party to be an incredibly diverse group of people with great ideas, interests, and hopes for this nation.  We just need to make sure everybody knows what we’re really like, and not what the common narrative makes us out to be.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

Mitt Romney thumps Newt Gingrich… Romney handily defeated Newt Gingrich… Romney cruised to a dominating victory… The Romney victory a decisive win… Romney obliterated Gingrich.

Gingrich’s performance has been pretty disastrous… Comparatively poor showing by Gingrich.

While scanning the news this morning, the above captions are from various national outlets reporting on yesterday’s Nevada caucuses. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Mitt Romney won.

With 71.1 percent of precincts reporting, the former Massachusetts governor had 48% of the vote, with Newt Gingrich in second place with 23%, followed by Ron Paul with 19% and Rick Santorum was in fourth with 11%.

I’m not sure why only 71% of the precincts are shown as reporting the morning after, however, when you consider this is Harry Reid country, it makes sense that it may take a little time to “sort” out the results.

And for those paying attention, the totals show that non-Romney (52%) continues to outperform Romney (48%).

Just after the Florida Primary, there was a report that the media would now ‘pull the plug on Newt’;

Presidential candidates survive on the oxygen of media coverage. It’s what keeps them going, enables them to keep raising money. Once the coverage is withdrawn, it’s only a matter of time before their candidacies expire. Out of sight, out of mind, out of money.

Which appears to be a tactic well underway… unless there’s bad news to report which serves to further the task at hand.

So Romney wins Nevada. The only shocking thing about Nevada would have been had the race been tight. Romney carried the state in 2008, where eventual nominee John McCain finished a distant third, behind even Ron Paul. 

And Mormons account for 25% of registered Republican voters and overwhelmingly support Romney.

Here’s another tidbit that puts the opening terminology in a little better perspective, Nevada allocates its 28 delegates proportionally, which means that Romney picked up 10 delegates to Newt’s 4.

Yet, a leading Romney backer in Nevada was calling for Gingrich to drop out of the race instead of continuing to divide the party. Naturally, this ally was not as insistent on Dr. Paul and Santorum, who continue to split the non-Romney vote ensuring Romney’s success, to follow suit.

The supporter, Nevada Rep. Joe Heck, almost comically stated in reference to Ron Paul, that he should quit when it becomes apparent that there is “enough critical mass in terms of delegates”, probably sometime after Super Tuesday.

In a press conference held in Las Vegas, Newt Gingrich said, “We will continue the campaign all the way to Tampa. I suspect this debate will continue for a long time… I’m not going to withdraw. I’m actually pretty happy with where we are.”

So the only real news coming out of Nevada is that the national media continues to serve up their choice for the GOP presidential nominee, as was the case in ’08, and most Americans continue to belly up to the buffet line asking for seconds.

Cross Posted at Florida Political Press

The good folks at the RNC took a look  at what candidate Obama promised in Nevada during the 2008 presidential campaign … and the record of failure that followed. The result reveals President Obama’s failure to live up to candidate Obama’s promises.

In a new video the RNC reminds us of how Obama’s failed promises impact Nevada. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country — 12.6%, the highest foreclosure filings in the country and more than 58% of properties with mortgages underwater:

Research proving Obama’s failed promises is provided below the fold courtesy of the RNC.

FAILED ON HOUSING

PROMISE: Obama Promised Nevadans That He Would “Act Quickly To Help People Stay In Their Homes” “I’ll also act quickly to help people stay in their homes, something that’s especially critical here in Nevada where foreclosure rates are five times the national average. I’ll help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages on affordable terms, and put in place a three-month moratorium on foreclosures to give folks the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. And I won’t let banks and lenders off the hook when it was their greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08) 

FAILURE: Obama’s “Mosaic” Of Housing Policies Is “Entering Its Fourth Year Of Weak Sales And High Foreclosures.” “The proposal, to be released in the coming weeks, is the latest addition to a mosaic of Obama administration programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Obama Pushes Proposal To Streamline Refinancing For Homeowners,” Bloomberg, 1/25/12)

Under Obama’s Housing Programs “Fewer Than 1,000 Loans Have Refinanced.”  ”Haven’t similar programs been tried before? Yes. But those programs put in place a series of rules designed to ensure that government entities weren’t taking on more risk by allowing investors and banks to offload risky mortgages onto the government. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration rolled out a program to let underwater borrowers refinance through the FHA, but that program required banks to first write down loan balances so that borrowers could qualify under existing rules. Fewer than 1,000 loans have refinanced through the program. Congress approved a more complicated version of this idea in spring 2008 called Hope for Homeowners, but it also resulted in just a few hundred refinances.” (Nick Timiraos, “Six Questions On Obama’s Mortgage Refinance Proposal,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/25/12)

Four Years Later Housing Is Still “Especially Critical Here In Nevada” 

“For 60 Consecutive Months, Nevada Has Had The Highest Foreclosure Rate Of Any State. That’s Five Long, Painful Years.” (Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, “No Silver Lining In Housing Market As Nevada Votes,” CNN, 2/3/12) 

“More Than 6 Percent Of Nevada Housing Units (One In 16) Had At Least One Foreclosure Filing In 2011, Giving It The Nation’s Highest State Foreclosure Rate For The Fifth Consecutive Year” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release, 1/12/12) 

• “[L]as Vegas Posted The Nation’s Top Foreclosure Rate For The Year Among Metropolitan Statistical Areas…” “With 7.38 percent of its housing units (one in 14) with at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, Las Vegas posted the nation’s top foreclosure rate for the year among metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 200,000 or more.” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release, 1/12/12)

In Nevada, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Homeowners Are Underwater On Their Mortgages. ”Data earlier this year from CoreLogic.com showed that nearly two-in-three Nevada homeowners owed more on their property than their homes were worth – a situation also known as being ‘underwater.’ Nevada was followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent) and Michigan (36 percent) in terms of underwater loans.” (Aaron Blake, “Obama And The Politics Of The Housing Foreclosure Crisis,” The Washington Post ‘s “The Fix ,“ 10/24/11)

FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE

IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED NEVADANS THAT HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS

PROMISE: Obama Said That Under His Plan, Americans Would See “Lower Premiums.” “If you have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08)

FAILURE: Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care “Less Affordable.” “At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made – that the health care law would ‘lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.’” (D’Angelo Gore, “Promises, Promises,” Factcheck.org, 1/4/12) 

• The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker: “Insurance Premiums Have Gone Up . . .” “Moreover, at this point it is debatable whether the law has made health care more affordable. Insurance premiums have gone up, in part because of new benefits mandated by the law.” (Glenn Kessler, “The Fine Print In Obama’s ‘Promises Kept’ Ad,” The Washington Post’s ” The Fact Checker,” 1/6/12) 

Kaiser Study Found That Costs Of Family Coverage “Climbed” 9 Percent In 2011. “The average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073, according to a poll of 2,088 private companies and state and local government agencies by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, and the Chicago- based American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Educational Trust.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,” Bloomberg, 9/27/11)

• Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage In 2011 Than They Did In 2010. “Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)

• The Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Kaiser Survey. “Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11) 

Nevada Received A Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization”

The Obama Administration Gave Nevada A Statewide Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization Of The Individual Market.” “The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, ‘may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.’” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun, 5/16/11)

• Nevada Received A Waiver Reducing The Requirement Of Revenue Spent On Medical Expenses From 80 Percent To 75 Percent Due To Fears It Would Drive Golden Rule And Aetna From The Insurance Market. “Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun, 5/16/11)

FAILED ON GREEN ENERGY JOBS

IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED TO CREATE GREEN ENERGY JOBS AND REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

PROMISE: Obama Said He Would “Create Five Million” New Jobs And “End Our Dependence On Oil From Middle East Dictators.” “If I am President, I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new, green jobs over the next decade – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08) 

FAILURE: Obama Has Taken Credit For 2.7 Million Green Energy Jobs That He Did Not Create. “The Brookings Institution study refers to 2.7 million workers currently employed by the clean economy — not the number of jobs created by Obama, which a viewer might interpret from the ad. The report found that ‘clean economy establishments’ added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, comprising six years of the Bush administration.” (“AdWatch: Obama’s 1^st Campaign TV Ad Defends His Energy Record Without Feel-Good Images,” The Associated Press, 1/20/12)

Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000. “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/28/11)

• Obama’s $500 Million Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs “Has Come Up Far Short Of Its Goals.” “The Labor Department’s inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals. A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That’s just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,” The Associated Press, 10/3/11)

It Is “Absolutely Not True” That Obama’s Policies Have Helped Wean The U.S. From Foreign Oil. “When asked, though, whether the Obama administration’s policies have helped wean the U.S. from foreign oil, [Oppenheimer & Co. energy analyst Fadel] Gheit was equally emphatic. ‘Absolutely not true,’ Gheit said. ‘It was all market driven and all through American ingenuity….It was no thanks to Washington, not thanks to lobbyists, not thanks to anybody.’” (Josh Gerstein, “What Obama’s First Ad Doesn’t Say,” Politico’s “Under The Radar”, 1/19/12)

The Obama Administration Denied A Permit To Build The Keystone Pipeline. “The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, an important link between a U.S. market that’s thirsty for energy and a rich source of petroleum in nice, stable, neighborly Canada.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Politics: Misguided Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline,” Chicago Tribune, 1/19/12)

• “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,” The Detroit News, 11/14/11)

Previous editions of Obama’s failed promises:

• Obama’s failed promises: Florida edition
• Obama’s failed promises: Iowa edition

The good folks at the RNC took a look  at what candidate Obama promised in Nevada during the 2008 presidential campaign … and the record of failure that followed. The result reveals President Obama’s failure to live up to candidate Obama’s promises.

In a new video the RNC reminds us of how Obama’s failed promises impact Nevada. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country — 12.6%, the highest foreclosure filings in the country and more than 58% of properties with mortgages underwater:

Research proving Obama’s failed promises is provided below the fold courtesy of the RNC.

FAILED ON HOUSING

PROMISE: Obama Promised Nevadans That He Would “Act Quickly To Help People Stay In Their Homes” “I’ll also act quickly to help people stay in their homes, something that’s especially critical here in Nevada where foreclosure rates are five times the national average. I’ll help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages on affordable terms, and put in place a three-month moratorium on foreclosures to give folks the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. And I won’t let banks and lenders off the hook when it was their greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08) 

FAILURE: Obama’s “Mosaic” Of Housing Policies Is “Entering Its Fourth Year Of Weak Sales And High Foreclosures.” “The proposal, to be released in the coming weeks, is the latest addition to a mosaic of Obama administration programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Obama Pushes Proposal To Streamline Refinancing For Homeowners,” Bloomberg, 1/25/12)

Under Obama’s Housing Programs “Fewer Than 1,000 Loans Have Refinanced.”  ”Haven’t similar programs been tried before? Yes. But those programs put in place a series of rules designed to ensure that government entities weren’t taking on more risk by allowing investors and banks to offload risky mortgages onto the government. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration rolled out a program to let underwater borrowers refinance through the FHA, but that program required banks to first write down loan balances so that borrowers could qualify under existing rules. Fewer than 1,000 loans have refinanced through the program. Congress approved a more complicated version of this idea in spring 2008 called Hope for Homeowners, but it also resulted in just a few hundred refinances.” (Nick Timiraos, “Six Questions On Obama’s Mortgage Refinance Proposal,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/25/12)

Four Years Later Housing Is Still “Especially Critical Here In Nevada” 

“For 60 Consecutive Months, Nevada Has Had The Highest Foreclosure Rate Of Any State. That’s Five Long, Painful Years.” (Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, “No Silver Lining In Housing Market As Nevada Votes,” CNN, 2/3/12) 

“More Than 6 Percent Of Nevada Housing Units (One In 16) Had At Least One Foreclosure Filing In 2011, Giving It The Nation’s Highest State Foreclosure Rate For The Fifth Consecutive Year” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release, 1/12/12) 

• “[L]as Vegas Posted The Nation’s Top Foreclosure Rate For The Year Among Metropolitan Statistical Areas…” “With 7.38 percent of its housing units (one in 14) with at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, Las Vegas posted the nation’s top foreclosure rate for the year among metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 200,000 or more.” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release, 1/12/12)

In Nevada, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Homeowners Are Underwater On Their Mortgages. ”Data earlier this year from CoreLogic.com showed that nearly two-in-three Nevada homeowners owed more on their property than their homes were worth – a situation also known as being ‘underwater.’ Nevada was followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent) and Michigan (36 percent) in terms of underwater loans.” (Aaron Blake, “Obama And The Politics Of The Housing Foreclosure Crisis,” The Washington Post ‘s “The Fix ,“ 10/24/11)

FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE

IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED NEVADANS THAT HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS

PROMISE: Obama Said That Under His Plan, Americans Would See “Lower Premiums.” “If you have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08)

FAILURE: Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care “Less Affordable.” “At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made – that the health care law would ‘lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.’” (D’Angelo Gore, “Promises, Promises,” Factcheck.org, 1/4/12) 

• The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker: “Insurance Premiums Have Gone Up . . .” “Moreover, at this point it is debatable whether the law has made health care more affordable. Insurance premiums have gone up, in part because of new benefits mandated by the law.” (Glenn Kessler, “The Fine Print In Obama’s ‘Promises Kept’ Ad,” The Washington Post’s ” The Fact Checker,” 1/6/12) 

Kaiser Study Found That Costs Of Family Coverage “Climbed” 9 Percent In 2011. “The average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073, according to a poll of 2,088 private companies and state and local government agencies by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, and the Chicago- based American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Educational Trust.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,” Bloomberg, 9/27/11)

• Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage In 2011 Than They Did In 2010. “Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)

• The Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Kaiser Survey. “Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11) 

Nevada Received A Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization”

The Obama Administration Gave Nevada A Statewide Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization Of The Individual Market.” “The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, ‘may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.’” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun, 5/16/11)

• Nevada Received A Waiver Reducing The Requirement Of Revenue Spent On Medical Expenses From 80 Percent To 75 Percent Due To Fears It Would Drive Golden Rule And Aetna From The Insurance Market. “Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun, 5/16/11)

FAILED ON GREEN ENERGY JOBS

IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED TO CREATE GREEN ENERGY JOBS AND REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

PROMISE: Obama Said He Would “Create Five Million” New Jobs And “End Our Dependence On Oil From Middle East Dictators.” “If I am President, I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new, green jobs over the next decade – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08) 

FAILURE: Obama Has Taken Credit For 2.7 Million Green Energy Jobs That He Did Not Create. “The Brookings Institution study refers to 2.7 million workers currently employed by the clean economy — not the number of jobs created by Obama, which a viewer might interpret from the ad. The report found that ‘clean economy establishments’ added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, comprising six years of the Bush administration.” (“AdWatch: Obama’s 1^st Campaign TV Ad Defends His Energy Record Without Feel-Good Images,” The Associated Press, 1/20/12)

Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000. “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/28/11)

• Obama’s $500 Million Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs “Has Come Up Far Short Of Its Goals.” “The Labor Department’s inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals. A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That’s just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,” The Associated Press, 10/3/11)

It Is “Absolutely Not True” That Obama’s Policies Have Helped Wean The U.S. From Foreign Oil. “When asked, though, whether the Obama administration’s policies have helped wean the U.S. from foreign oil, [Oppenheimer & Co. energy analyst Fadel] Gheit was equally emphatic. ‘Absolutely not true,’ Gheit said. ‘It was all market driven and all through American ingenuity….It was no thanks to Washington, not thanks to lobbyists, not thanks to anybody.’” (Josh Gerstein, “What Obama’s First Ad Doesn’t Say,” Politico’s “Under The Radar”, 1/19/12)

The Obama Administration Denied A Permit To Build The Keystone Pipeline. “The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, an important link between a U.S. market that’s thirsty for energy and a rich source of petroleum in nice, stable, neighborly Canada.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Politics: Misguided Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline,” Chicago Tribune, 1/19/12)

• “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,” The Detroit News, 11/14/11)

Previous editions of Obama’s failed promises:

• Obama’s failed promises: Florida edition
• Obama’s failed promises: Iowa edition

These are as generic as I can make them.

1. Politicians lie.  Let me repeat that.  Politicians lie.  Don’t be so upset about it: so do you.
2. If the Iowa caucus was unimportant, people wouldn’t be obsessing over it.
3. If the Iowa caucus was all-important, we’d have it in August and combine it with the nominating convention.
4. When Candidate X’s supporter tells you that Candidate Y has a problem, s/he is not necessarily lying.  But, yeah, s/he is very likely being a jackass about it.
5. Money, buzz, crowds, speeches, debates, polls, commercials, zingers, phone banks, ads, leaflets, and hand-knitted tea cozies with the candidate’s campaign logo on them are great… but not as great as winning the precinct votes.  Winning precincts is also the only metric that goes up on the scoreboard.
6. When it comes to elections, the saying is inverted: defeat has a thousand fathers, victory is an orphan.
7. Pollsters have reputations to protect, but they also know darn well that the acceptable margin of error in primary polling is larger than normal.  Trying to figure out whether it’s the former or the latter point that applies in any given case is one of the things that makes life interesting.
8. Reagan’s fabled 11th Commandment does not include the clause “…so you must forgive an over-zealous supporter for being an jackass.” I mention this because many people seem to have that clause penciled in.
9. The Republican party has a large contingent (but not as large as it might think) of people who will answer the question “What are you going to do, sit this one out?” with a flat “Yes” if you push them too hard.  If this happens, well, you were warned.
10. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who noted that the idea is not to pray that God be on your side; but rather that you pray for help for you to stay on His.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

These are as generic as I can make them.

1. Politicians lie.  Let me repeat that.  Politicians lie.  Don’t be so upset about it: so do you.
2. If the Iowa caucus was unimportant, people wouldn’t be obsessing over it.
3. If the Iowa caucus was all-important, we’d have it in August and combine it with the nominating convention.
4. When Candidate X’s supporter tells you that Candidate Y has a problem, s/he is not necessarily lying.  But, yeah, s/he is very likely being a jackass about it.
5. Money, buzz, crowds, speeches, debates, polls, commercials, zingers, phone banks, ads, leaflets, and hand-knitted tea cozies with the candidate’s campaign logo on them are great… but not as great as winning the precinct votes.  Winning precincts is also the only metric that goes up on the scoreboard.
6. When it comes to elections, the saying is inverted: defeat has a thousand fathers, victory is an orphan.
7. Pollsters have reputations to protect, but they also know darn well that the acceptable margin of error in primary polling is larger than normal.  Trying to figure out whether it’s the former or the latter point that applies in any given case is one of the things that makes life interesting.
8. Reagan’s fabled 11th Commandment does not include the clause “…so you must forgive an over-zealous supporter for being an jackass.” I mention this because many people seem to have that clause penciled in.
9. The Republican party has a large contingent (but not as large as it might think) of people who will answer the question “What are you going to do, sit this one out?” with a flat “Yes” if you push them too hard.  If this happens, well, you were warned.
10. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who noted that the idea is not to pray that God be on your side; but rather that you pray for help for you to stay on His.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s AG, has sworn an oath to follow the law of his state and the US. However, in this case, while the law is valid, it makes a mockery of Virginia’s Republican Primary.

Although it borders the nation’s capital, no candidate will campaign here in Virginia and as a result, Virginia’s primary will be a non-entity in the national media once the dust settles over the legal challenge mounted by the candidates who are not named Romney or Paul.

This situation is but one example of an archaic process designed to find the standard bearer of one of the two major parties – note that if these candidates were Democrats and Obama was a Republican (A facetious analogy to be sure), the result would be the same.

This situation comes a week before a caucus in Iowa that is about as backward as possible in terms of representing the true intentions of most Iowa Republicans.

Imagine meeting in the middle of a large room with all of your fellow Republicans in your town or district and then being told to stand under the sign or banner of “your” candidate – publicly in front of your friends and neighbors.

This goes counter to the principle of a secret ballot – which assures anonymity in voting – and (in my humble opinion) assures a larger voter turn-out.

What makes this caucus even more absurd is that consistently, year after year, Iowa chooses the candidate first.

While I do not begrudge Iowans their historic place in the voting order, I only ask that all states share the same process in selecting “their candidate”.

I will not even begin to explain why or how we should change the Electoral College.

As far as I am concerned, the entire election process needs a major overhaul to follow the spirit of the Declaration of Independence whether or not it is spelled out in states’ constitutions nationwide.

Sorry, Virginians and my apologies to the people of Iowa.

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)