BloggeRhythms

Today's the day much of the nation’s been eagerly waiting for. Win or lose, the Congressional votes will reflect, for the most part, as a referendum on how voters feel about the incumbent president far more than on local issues.

 

Fox News Carl Cameron wrote that: “Sources also say that Democrats in competitive states, win or lose, have validated the GOP criticism of the Obama agenda on issues including guns, Keystone XL Pipeline and national security policy, which includes Syria, the Islamic State, Vladimir Putin, Ebola and more.” 

 

Although, “it is expected Obama would veto the first few bills to reach his desk,” anticipated new Senate leader, Mitch McConnell “is prepared to bide his time.”

 

Therefore, “if a Republican-controlled Congress passes bills next year with a few Democratic votes and the president doesn't sign them, the GOP 2016 field could look stronger. In turn, Democratic White House hopefuls, including Hillary Clinton, would either have to side with or against Obama as they run to replace him.”

 

What’s  quite interesting is that one of the first, and most important items Mr. Cameron listed is the Keystone XL pipeline, which leads right into another article, this by Victoria Stilwell and Shobhana Chandra, on www.bloomberg.com, about lower fuel costs, as follows:

 

“Cheaper fuel will give consumers extra spending money heading into the holiday-shopping season, the most important time of year for retailers. While the hit to oil producers will be small and take longer to emerge, one thing is certain: collectively, the economic positives will outweigh the negatives." 

 

“It’s beneficial for the economy,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. “It should give some support to holiday sales. Money that consumers would otherwise put in the gas tank they’ll put under the Christmas tree instead.”

 

As far as the actual savings are concerned: “A $20-a-barrel decline in the price of crude saves U.S. oil consumers about $140 billion over a full year, according to Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics Inc. in White Plains, New York. 

 

“As a result, cheaper oil prices could boost annualized GDP growth by one to two percentage points in the fourth and first quarters, mostly through increased household spending, Shepherdson said. This “raises the possibility that GDP could expand by more than 4 percent” in each of the two quarters, he said. 

 

Every one-cent change in gasoline prices is equivalent to about a $1 billion shift in household spending on energy over a year, according to Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Were gas costs to hover around current levels, they’d deliver about $50 billion in energy savings for households, and push GDP up by 0.3 percentage point over the next year, he projects.

 

Therefore, what’s painfully obvious is that if it were not for political pandering to his base of environmentalists, the boost to the nation’s economic recovery could have been accomplished six years ago. However, partisan politics obviously outweighed the needs of the majority of people.

 

Further evidence of highly biased political priorities was delivered by Secretary of State, John Kerry, as reported by Brittany M. Hughes on cnsnews.com.

 

The secretary said, “The bottom line is that our planet is warming due to human actions, the damage is already visible, and the challenge requires ambitious, decisive and immediate action in a statement released earlier on Sunday. He was reacting to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest climate assessment.

 

Those who disagree with his position on climate change are “stuck in a debate over ideology and politics,” Kerry said, adding that “[t]hose who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids.”

 

Kerry also warned of a “large-scale disaster” if the threat of global warming is not addressed.”

 

In this case, while Secretary Kerry continues to emphasize global-warming as the nation’s most pressing problem despite the general public’s concerns about far more serious issues, Mother Nature once more snowed on his parade, whereas, “On the same day the State Department released Kerry’s statement, a “record-breaker” nor’easter slammed into Massachusetts, bringing with it “the most snow recorded on any Nov. 2 in 120 years,” the Boston Globe reported on Sunday.

 

And lastly, a long but quite accurate comment from a reader of an article by Piers Morgan titled: “Ten reasons why bluffing, boring, blame-pointing Obama can expect a well-deserved shellacking in the midterm elections,” in the dailymail.co.uk.

 

Paulo m., new york, wrote” “Some of saw this coming 6 years ago. Our sadness over obama winning then wasn't due to partisan politics, it was because we love the country. It was obvious even back then that the man was lying. He promised a new openness in government, while hiding his own radical school records. And the lapdog press found this unnewsworthy. He claimed to have sat under Rev. Wright for 20 years without ever hearing what he said, and then gave a vacuous race speech in Philadelphia that, again, the media swooned over. The facts were available back then, in books by Corsi and Frederosso, and the right questions were being asked in the conservative blogosphere. Where we are now was quite predictable. The salient point is that mainstream media proved itself wholly corrupt and biased, and sold the electorate down the river. Now we get these articles in which that same media scratches its head and wonders what went wrong. I hope that an entire generation has been inoculated against progressivism.”

 

Which means that, if Paulo is correct, and the projected Democrat losses actually materialize this time around, those same Democrats surely know full well and precisely who to blame directly and precisely why. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios