Friday, October 19, 2012

Evangelical Landslide for Romney?

Weekly Standard ^ | October 19, 2012 | Mark Tooley

Although not widely noticed, Mitt Romney seems to be on his way to capturing as much of the white evangelical vote as George W. Bush famously did in 2004. Bush got 79 percent. A Pew poll conducted before the first presidential debate had Romney getting 74 percent of white evangelicals versus 19 percent for Obama.

Although Barack Obama got only 26 percent of white evangelicals in 2008, according to exit polls, he got about 33 percent of young white evangelicals. The latter statistic inspired hopes by Democrats and liberal evangelicals for a generational shift away from social issues in favor of more liberal-focused causes. But a Public Religion Research Institute poll, pre-presidential debates, showed young white evangelicals choosing Romney over Obama by 80 percent to 15 percent. Hispanic evangelicals reportedly are not as strongly for Romney as they were for Bush, although they are much more pro-Romney than Catholic or non-religious Hispanics.
Full throttle evangelical support for Romney was not widely anticipated. Evangelicals do not see the former Mormon bishop as one of their own, as they did Bush. And Romney has not strongly emphasized social issues that energize conservative evangelicals. Many prominent evangelical leaders endorsed Rick Santorum during the Republican primaries.
But Obama administration policies favoring same-sex marriage, indirect abortion funding through Obamacare, and the HHS mandate compelling religious groups to offer contraceptive/abortifacient coverage have antagonized many evangelicals. Several evangelical schools have joined Catholic schools in litigating against the mandate. The Democratic convention’s awkward last minute restoration of God to the party platform likely did not help.
Now the most revered American evangelical seems to have virtually endorsed Romney. On October 11 Romney met with 93-year-old Billy Graham at his North Carolina mountain log cabin. Photos of the two with Graham’s evangelist son, Franklin, were released and widely published. Graham was quoted as telling Romney: “I'll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that.” A statement from Graham afterwards was issued.
"It was an honor to meet and host Gov. Romney in my home today, especially since I knew his late father former Michigan Gov. George Romney, whom I considered a friend,” the statement said. “I have followed Mitt Romney's career in business, the Olympic Games, as governor of Massachusetts and, of course, as a candidate for president of the United States.”
"What impresses me even more than Gov. Romney's successful career are his values and strong moral convictions,” Graham continued. “I appreciate his faithful commitment to his impressive family, particularly his wife Ann of 43 years and his five married sons.”
After noting that it was a “privilege to pray with Gov. Romney—for his family and our country,” Graham noted he will turn 94 the day after Election Day and believes America “is at a crossroads.” He then offered his virtual endorsement: “I hope millions of Americans will join me in praying for our nation and to vote for candidates who will support the biblical definition of marriage, protect the sanctity of life and defend our religious freedoms." In contrast, after candidate John McCain visited Billy Graham in 2008 there was only a statement from Franklin Graham commending McCain’s “personal faith and his moral clarity.” President Obama visited Graham in April, becoming the twelfth American president with whom the evangelist has conferred across over 60 years of public life.
Critics on the left groused that Franklin Graham likely wrote the Romney statement and got his aged father’s perfunctory approval. But there’s nothing in the statement that sounds unlike Graham. The evangelist has typically avoided the appearance of direct political endorsements, his famous last minute decision to back away from endorsing Richard Nixon in 1960 being one example. But he famously supported North Carolina’s pro-traditional marriage constitutional amendment in May, which clearly contributed towards the amendment’s large victory. Critics detected the hand of the son there too. But nobody believes that the elder Graham is anything less than pro traditional marriage and pro-life. And certainly he must share religious liberty concerns over the HHS mandate. Critics also reported that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed a reference to Mormonism as a “cult” from its website after the Romney visit.
Undeterred, on October 18, Billy Graham’s group placed a special message from the elder evangelist in a Wall Street Journal ad. “The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial,” he succinctly declares. “As I approach my 94th birthday I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and who support the nation of Israel. I urge you to support candidates who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America remains one nation under God.” The words are juxtaposed with a large photo of a white haired Graham stalwartly clutching a Bible, along with his signature.
The Graham ad apparently will appear in other newspapers in the coming days. The American Family Association, a large parachurch group based in Mississippi, additionally disseminated the ad with permission from Graham’s office and urged it be distributed in churches. Undoubtedly it will be.
Graham’s pro-Romney efforts may further energize evangelicals in key states like North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and some other Midwestern states. But polls indicated well before the Graham effort that evangelicals were already fully on board with defeating President Obama, whatever their stance towards the first Mormon presidential nominee.

SEIU, AFL-CIO, ACLU and Others Ready Attack Against Voter Integrity

Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Katie Pavlich

As I reported yesterday

Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings is using intimidation and bully tactics to threaten voter integrity group True the Vote. As I also mentioned, he isn't alone in his attacks.
On October 10, AFL-CIO Florida attorney Alma Gonzales sent a letter to local True the Vote leader, private citizen and volunteer Kimberly Kelly, threatening legal action should the group continue their efforts to get voter rolls cleaned up and to train poll watchers for Election Day. Gonzales also accused the group of violating the rights of voters.

"According to press reports, True the Vote plans to train poll watchers who may challenge voters at polls. Please be informed that federal law prohibits all forms of intimidation, threats and coercion with-respect to individuals exercising their rights to vote. The Voting Rights Act makes voter intimidation, coercion, and threats that interfre with the right to vote criminal offenses punishable by fines and up to one year in prison. In addition, under Florida Stat. 104.0615 it is a third degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine to 'directly or indirectly use or threaten to use force, violence, or intimidation or any tactice of coercion or intimidation to induce or compel an individual to vote or refrain from voting.' Organizations seeking to protect individuals exercising their Constitutional rights to vote will be on hand at polling places on Election Day. Poll watchers, poll monitors and attorneys will be on site to educate individuals of their legal rights to vote and collect information if improper challenges are filed of if individuals feel threatened or intimidated. Information regarding such conduct will be submitted to authorities immediatly," Gonzales wrote in the letter.
Gonzales failed to disclose her position as treasurer for the Florida Democratic Party and her high ranking position in the national Democratic Party.
On October 17, attorney Judith Scott of the SEUI sent a letter to the IRS demanding True the Vote be stripped of its tax exempt status, claiming the group "attempts to influence political campaigns and engages in excessive lobbying."
In September, a letter was sent on behalf of far left groups by progressive attorneys threatened legal action against True the Vote should they continue submitting requests for voter roll cleanups prior to the November 6, 2012 election.

Photobucket

It is ironic labor groups like the SEIU and AFL-CIO would be commenting on voter intimidation, after all, both support card-check in union elections and intimidate members into voting for Democratic candidates every day. True the Vote doesn't lobby for political parties and has people like former Democrat Artur Davis, Democrat Pat Caddell, Republican John Fund and others, speak at their summits.

CEOs Warn Congress of 'Grave Consequences' in Taxmageddon

ATR ^ | 2012-10-18 | Rhett Brooks

Today a letter was sent to the President and members of Congress by 15 CEOs from some of the largest financial institutions in the U.S. The 15 CEOs who signed the letter represent the Financial Services Forum, a non-partisan organization that deals specifically with financial and economic policy. In the letter, they urge for the avoidance of the coming Taxmageddon and warn of the dire effects that inaction would have on the economy: “The consequences of inaction—for stability in global financial markets, for economic growth, for millions of Americans still without work, and for the financial circumstances of American businesses and households—would be very grave.”
References are made regarding what credible institutions have said concerning Taxmageddon, including the Federal Reserve’s warning that Taxmageddon would cause a recession “and about 1.25 million fewer jobs would be created in 2013.” Moody’s potential downgrade of the U.S. over fiscal negotiations is also mentioned in the letter and the downgrade's negative effect on interest rates and global markets.
President Obama’s failed economic policies that have largely contributed to the fragile state of the economy is a big concern for CEOs when considering Taxmageddon’s consequences: “at a time when economic growth is less than 2 percent, and with nearly 25 million Americans either out of work or underemployed, the still-fragile U.S. economy cannot sustain—and the American people do not deserve—the impact of more gridlock in Washington.”

Read more: http://www.atr.org/ceos-warn-congress-grave-consequences-taxmageddon-a7256#ixzz29mBlaf3N

Women Decide for Whom the Buck Stops

Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Suzanne Fields

There's a new woman voter out there. Empowered women are holding themselves to the same standard they hold men to, and it's showing up in the public opinion polls. Female concerns over the debt and the deficit, not the usual gender issues, have dramatically increased as the Nov. 6 election bears down upon us.

The Gallup Poll now shows Mitt Romney trailing the president by only a point among women who are likely to vote in 12 swing states. This follows a Pew Research Center poll taken after the first presidential debate showing that President Obama's 18-point lead among women had shrunk to a tie, 47 percent to 47 percent.

"In every poll, we've seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today after the first debate. These polls find women increasingly concerned with the deficit and debt, just like men. The social issues continue to be more important to women than to men, but these issues no longer dominate the discussion.
Hillary Clinton's famous needling of Barack Obama four years ago -- "the buck stops in the Oval Office" -- suggested that he didn't have the leadership qualities required in a president. She reprised the theme this week, inadvertently or not, when she fell on the president's sword to take the blame for the national-security fiasco in Libya.
Her attempt to rescue the president with her declaration that "the buck stops with me" follows the litany of mixed metaphors in search of someone to blame for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The president stands accused of "throwing Hillary under the bus," she's accused of "getting Obama off the hook," and the State Department has become the "broken link" in "the chain of events" of a major security failure. The "failure of intelligence" contributes a new definition of incompetence at the highest levels of government.
When a president hides behind the skirt, or actually the pantsuit, of his secretary of state, it's enough to tempt even a feminist to put national security above the social issues.
Mrs. Clinton can't like the position she has been relegated to, taking responsibility for the president's own debacle after weeks of White House misinformation. Her lame lamentation that she wanted to avoid "some kind of political gotcha" so close to the election makes her look less than authoritative even as it renders the president as weak and confused. She was busy enough trying to defend the robotic Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for her repeated description of the Benghazi terrorism as "spontaneous" protest of an obscure anti-Islam Internet video that almost nobody, in the Middle East or elsewhere, has seen.
Ironically, Hillary fell on the president's sword from a perch in Peru, where she is attending a conference devoted to, of all things, "women's empowerment." It hasn't been a good fortnight for the ladies in leadership positions. Candy Crowley, the moderator of the second debate, got it wrong when she misconstrued Obama's use of the word "terror" in his Rose Garden remarks speech the day after the Benghazi tragedy, and had to concede that Romney was correct that the president refused for two weeks to say that the death of his ambassador in Libya was an act of "terrorism" and not a violent movie review.
Many women are exacting a heavy price for the president's alienation of affection. Susan Crown, a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Chicago businesswoman, is one prominent example. She is a fallen-away Obama fan who campaigns this year for Romney. She argues that the so-called war on women is actually an economic war on everybody. She observes that the annual household income has dropped by an average of $4,000 since the president took office, a fact emphasized by Mitt Romney in the second debate, with the acid observation that, "I do not think Barack Obama has ever taken an accounting class."
In the second debate, Romney looked deeper into the dark side of Obama accounting, finding that 3.5 million more women are living in poverty than before he took charge of the economy. Women understand that an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment, when half of college graduates can't find good jobs, is not good for anyone.
In the first presidential debate Romney destroyed the straw man that the president constructed to represent the challenger. In the second debate, he destroyed the prospect that the straw man could be resurrected. Three weeks on, women and men will finally decide for whom the buck stops.

Women Increasingly Look to Romney to Fix Economy!

Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON -- The Obama campaign made a coldly calculated decision early this year to go after the women's vote by attacking Mitt Romney on his right-to-life position.

They put together ads targeting women that focused solely on abortion and contraceptives. And throughout the summer they ran them nonstop in a massive ad buy that significantly enlarged Barack Obama's lead among women voters.

While polls showed women were concerned with many other issues, such as a brutally high unemployment rate, the weak economy, deepening deficits and debt, and other domestic problems, the Obama men on the campaign saw women as single-issue voters and treated them that way.
The ads did not run nationally, but were used primarily in key battleground states that will decide this election. Across the Potomac River in Virginia, those ads ran continually, as they did elsewhere. And they did their job for a while.
But what did Obama's ads tell us about how his campaign staff saw the women's vote, or more important, how they perceived women in general?
They were saying women weren't as concerned about other important political issues that make the top 10 list in the campaign polls; that they could be easily manipulated with frightening demagoguery suggesting Romney was going to make abortions illegal and, if given the chance, deny them access to contraceptives.
For the record, the former governor personally opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. Though he thinks government should not be in the business of funding contraceptives, or forcing church groups and their institutions to provide them in their insurance policies when it violates their religious beliefs, as Obamacare would, Romney supports contraception.
But Obama's insulting, insensitive and, yes, even sexist ad strategy now appears to be a political miscalculation of huge proportions.
After the first game-changing presidential debate, many women began moving away from Obama after watching his pitiful performance.
They were drawn to Romney by his strong focus on the weak economy, the decline in full-time jobs, trillions in new debt, rising poverty, especially among women, and other issues that concern them a great deal more than the issue of contraceptives.
Here's what USA TODAY's Susan Page reported earlier this week in a front-page story on a Gallup poll that was headlined "Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead": "Mitt Romney leads President Obama by four percentage points among likely voters in the nation's top battlegrounds, and he has growing enthusiasm among women to thank."
The USA TODAY/Gallup poll numbers "show that Mitt Romney leads Obama by 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in the swing states." Women, who previously supported the president by lopsided margins, were now narrowly divided 49 percent for Obama and 48 percent for Romney.
"That makes women, especially blue-collar 'waitress moms' whose families have been hard-hit by the nation's economic woes, the quintessential swing voters in 2012's close race," Page writes.
So while the network news and cable shows still persist in spreading the myth that Obama retains a major lead among women, the pollsters who know better paint a very different picture.
"In every poll, we've seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney" since his strong performance in the first debate, said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.
Lake believes the changed views among women about Romney could be "a precursor to movement" toward him. "It opens them up to take a second look, and that's the danger for Obama."
Now, in the wake of Tuesday's debate, an increasingly desperate Obama campaign is trying to make an issue out of Romney's story that as governor he asked aides to provide more women candidates for top positions in his administration. Pretty soon, he said, he received "binders full of women."
"I've got to tell you, we don't have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women," Obama said while campaigning in Iowa. CNN tried to cook up a head of steam on the issue Wednesday, but it quickly fell flat on its face, as Romney has escalated his attacks on the president's abysmal record on women in Obama's jobless, poverty-stricken economy.
Romney's strongest attack line was delivered forcefully in the second debate: "There are 3.5 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office. We don't have to live like this."
"This is a presidency that has not helped America's women, and as I go across the country and ask women, 'What can I do to help?' what they speak about day in and day out is, 'Help me find a good job, or a good job for my spouse,'" Romney said in Ohio Wednesday
"That's what the women of America are concerned about. And the answers are coming back from us and not from Barack Obama," he said.
As for Romney's record on hiring women when he was governor of Massachusetts, here's what his running mate and lieutenant governor Kerry Healey said this week:
"When Mitt Romney talks about women, when he says he believes that we can do any job a man can do, I know from experience that he's speaking from the heart," she said in a statement. "Of the 20 top positions in the Romney administration, 10 of them were filled by women, more than any other state in the nation."
The worst mistake you can make in a campaign is to talk down to any group of voters, underestimate them or pander to them. Obama's top campaign men -- the highest posts are all males -- thought they could easily lock up the women's vote on a single issue.
But they've learned to their regret that women have the same concerns as everyone else in our country right now, and the same hope: to put a man in the Oval Office who knows how to get America working again.

How Much of a Set-Up Was Crowley's Libya Question?

AmericanThinker.com ^ | 10/19/2012 | Jack Cashill

On Tuesday night's debate, the evening's most notorious exchange did not begin with moderator Candy Crowley's wildly inappropriate intervention on the "act of terror" question. It almost assuredly began minutes earlier.
The audience question that prompted the exchange came from Long Islander Kerry Ladka, who, reasonably enough, asked in regards to the Libyan consulate, "Who denied enhanced security and why?"
The question went to President Barack Obama, and he launched into a well-rehearsed set piece about how he was handling the issue. Mitt Romney responded much as one would expect him to respond, criticizing the White House response to the attack, especially Obama's Las Vegas trip a day afterwards, and Obama's Mideast policy in general.
It was at this point that the debate, certainly from appearances, took a turn for the prearranged. It was now 70 minutes on. Crowley conceded a shortage of time and an excess of audience questions. Nevertheless, instead of moving on to that next question, Crowley asked a question of her own. Even before she began to ask, however, Obama was strolling confidently towards Crowley as though he knew what was going to happen next.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Revenue Facts Blow Up the Obama-Biden Tax Cut Lie!

Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Bob Beauprez

Whenever Republicans – or anyone else – propose a tax cut, Democrats run to the nearest microphone in horror crying about all the revenue it will "cost" the federal government. Panicked Pols will foretell of massive firings of teachers and policeman, children will starve because school lunches will disappear, and condoms and birth control pills will vanish from Planned Parenthood stock rooms.
Such is the case in these waning days of the 2012 presidential campaign as Barack Obama and Joe Biden rail against the Romney-Ryan plan to lower the tax burden on Americans. It's not just that Mitt and Paul believe everybody in America could use some relief. They also know that history has proven time and again that lower tax rates are a proven stimulus for increased economic activity which produces more, not less, revenue for the US Treasury as the following chart demonstrates.


Reprinted from IBD: October 18, 2012
Not only do Obama and Biden deny historical fact with their opposition to Romney's plan, they pretend that restoration of economic vitality is somehow just one more big tax increase away. Their plan – already rejected by even by many Democrats in Congress, by the way – would raise taxes for the handful of folks at the top of the income ladder; many of which are small business owners.
In a front page feature for Investor's Business Daily for Tuesday, October 18, 2012 Paul Sperry does a terrific job of explaining the historical financial realities that happened with when tax rates were both increased and decreased across time by Democrats and Republicans from the Kennedy Administration through George W. Bush.
Obama and Biden would do well to study and understand this indisputable piece of American history. But, then their objective isn't really to fix our economy; it's all playing class warfare in the hope of eeking out re-election.
In his opening few paragraphs Sperry writes:
President Obama warned that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney's proposed income-tax cuts will "cost" the government revenue and repeat Bush policies that he says blew up the deficit.
"The centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts," Obama said at Tuesday's presidential debate in New York. "That's what took us from surplus to deficit."
He called Romney's tax plan "sketchy," because it promises to raise revenues while slashing personal tax rates from top to bottom. His debate sparring partner, Democratic Sen. John Kerry, went further, calling it a "fraud."
The Obama camp has strenuously opposed Romney's pro-growth strategy, arguing that tax breaks, especially for the wealthy, "rob" programs for the middle class and poor because they don't raise revenues and don't "pay for themselves."
"It has never been done before," Vice President Joe Biden insisted in last week's debate with Romney running-mate Paul Ryan.
"It's been done a couple of times, actually," Ryan shot back.
The data bear out Ryan. In fact, the White House's own numbers put a big wrinkle in its argument.
The historical tables in the back of the latest "Economic Report of the President" show that the Bush tax cuts generated more, not less, federal revenues — a phenomenon that also held true for Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Kennedy

Romney nearing 270

The Washington Post ^ | 10/19/12 | Jennifer Rubin

Mitt Romney is now leading President Obama nationally in the RealClearPolitics average. He is over 50 percent in Gallup. No candidate over 50 percent in Gallup this late in the race has lost. His favorability rating (favorable to unfavorable) is higher than Obama’s. In electoral votes, when you average recent polling, he leads 206 to 201.

Romney’s team is “done” ( i.e. feels it has comfortably) with North Carolina. Although polling is still mixed, the Romney team believes it is ahead in Colorado, Virginia and Florida. If you are counting electoral votes that puts Romney’s total up to 257. A win in either Ohio or Pennsylvania would put Romney over 270. Alternatively, if he grabs New Hampshire and Iowa, plus either Nevada or Wisconsin, he’ll win the race.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

The great gaffe

Jewish World Review ^ | 10/19/2012 | Charles Krauthammer

Fight night at Hofstra. The two boxers, confined within a ring of spectators — circling, feinting, taunting, staring each other down — come several times, by my reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs, of the kind that on occasion so delightfully break out in the Taiwanese parliament. Think of it: the Secret Service storming the ring, pinning Mitt Romney to the canvas as Candy Crowley administers the 10 count.

The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.

It was a huge gaffe. It is indelibly on the record. It will prove a very expensive expedient.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...

The absolute BEST line from the Al Smith Dinner .."That Darn Son-to-job ratio"

National Review


From National Review's Jim Geraghty's "Morning Jolt"..

'But the single biggest metaphorical crotch-kick came from great-grandson Al Smith IV, who told President Obama...'

"We recognize that you have some challenges this year. But it's never good when your opponent has produced more jobs than you have sons.."

Gas Prices Are Up Because of Obama's Offshore Ban!

Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2012 | Phil Kerpen

In the Hofstra presidential debate, President Obama said: "when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse." Wrong. Prices collapsed because we signaled to the world that we were finally moving forward with developing America's massive offshore oil and gas resources - and they shot back up when Obama reimposed the offshore ban.
Obama's ridiculous story that the doubling of gasoline prices under his watch is a result of economic recovery doesn't fit the facts. According the National Bureau of Economic Research, responsible for officially designating when recessions start, the recession began in December of 2007. The average price for a gallon of gasoline that month, according the Energy Information Administration, was $3.02. The price rose for the next seven months with the country in recession. The price peaked in July of 2008 at $4.06 a gallon, more than half a year into recession, exacerbating economic pain and spurring the national protest movement that gave us "Drill Here, Drill Now" and "Drill, Baby, Drill."
That July 2008 peak coincided with a critical policy change. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling that his father had put in place. That indicated a consolidation of support for offshore drilling that stalled the run-up in prices at the pump. In the next two months, the average price dropped more than thirty cents to $3.70.
Grassroots activists pressed even harder, demanding Congress lift the remaining barrier to offshore drilling, the appropriations rider that had been in place since 1981. The pressure on Obama was so intense that he even reversed his opposition, claiming on August 1, 2008, that he would support offshore drilling under some circumstances.
Meanwhile, activists ratcheted up pressure on Congress and the White House, urging Congress to let the ban expire. Facing organized opposition in Congress, a Bush veto threat, and overwhelming public opinion in favor of drilling, Nancy Pelosi caved. After 27 years, the ban on offshore drilling was officially lifted on October 1, 2008.
With the moratorium lifted, markets anticipated future production of the estimated 19.1 billion barrels of oil (equal to 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia) in the Outer Continental Shelf. Market psychology abruptly reversed, and the price at the pump dropped sharply.
It reached a low of $1.79 in January 2009, the month of Obama's inauguration. That's no coincidence.
The first order of business for Ken Salazar, Obama's new secretary of the Interior, was to stop the pending opening of the former moratorium waters - supposedly temporarily. That announcement was made on February 10, 2009. By April, prices were back over two dollars. By June, when the recession officially ended, the price was $2.63 - up more than 80 cents from when Obama took office while the economy was still in recession.
Prices spiked up again starting in May of 2010, which is when Obama and Salazar imposed an illegal moratorium (literally; Salazar was held in contempt of court because the moratorium was based on a politically corrupted report) in the Gulf of Mexico as an overreaction to the BP spill.
By December of 2010, Obama had fully and permanently reimposed the old moratorium that Bush and Congress had lifted in 2008. So now we're back where we were in summer of 2008, with prices around four dollars and vast offshore American energy resources locked up by politicians. The facts are clear - the pain at the pump is not, as Obama suggested, a result of a supposedly strong economy. It is a result of his own disastrous policy.