Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Gingrich: The key ‘R’ word is Republican, not Romney

Gingrich: The key ‘R’ word is Republican, not Romney

By Newt Gingrich

(Human Events) With all the efforts to understand the recent election defeat, a lot of the focus has been on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his campaign.

That is exactly the wrong way to begin analyzing the outcome of the 2012 campaign.

The focus on Romney as a candidate is profoundly misleading for those who want to prepare for future Republican victories.

Any analysis of recent Republican presidential results will reveal a systemic failure which can’t be ascribed to Romney.

The last clear Republican presidential victory was in 1988 when Vice President George H W Bush won with 53.37 percent over Dukakis.

Since then we have lost the popular vote in five out of six elections for president and dramatically underperformed in re-electing a president with the lowest margin in the history of presidential re-elections. (Other incumbents were defeated for re-election but none was re-elected with a narrower margin than President George W. Bush in 2004.)

Consider the results:

President George H. W. Bush lost re-election in 1992 in a three way race with then-Gov. Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. The Republican got 38 percent in a three way race.

Senator Bob Dole got 41 percent against President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Then-Gov. George W Bush got 543,816 fewer votes than Vice President Al Gore, but won because of a fluke in the electoral college. It was the fourth weakest winning performance in American history.

President George W Bush was re-elected with 50.73 percent of the vote in 2004. It was the weakest Presidential re-election in American history. This was against a candidate who on 53 issues averaged being in the minority position by 77 to 17 percent as a senator and whose record was more liberal than Senator Ted Kennedy’s.

By contrast, President Richard Nixon got 60.17 percent of the vote for re-election in 1972 and President Ronald Reagan got 58.77 percent of the vote for re-election in 1984. So the Republicans in 2004 were running between eight and ten per cent behind the norm for re-election.

Then Sen. Obama beat Sen. McCain in 2008 with the Republican only getting 45 percent and losing by 9,549,000 votes.

The defeat of Romney with 47.61 percent of the vote running 5,910,000 behind President Obama is about the norm for recent Republican candidates.

Instead of looking at the Romney campaign in isolation Republican activists and analysts should be looking at the culture, structure and system of the GOP and its consultants, people who are paid for campaign advice without long term institutional responsibilities.

Republicans need a thorough systematic lessons-learned approach because the problem is systemic rather than personality-based.

Any team which has had 20 straight years of underperforming ought to review the entire system and not simply focus on the newest scapegoat.

In the first weeks of our “Lessons to be Learned” project at Gingrich Productions, we have already begun to develop insights that are systemic rather than personality driven.

There are big problems from the failure to think strategically about issues, to the unwillingness to engage the proliferation of infotainment outlets, to the methodical failure to include minorities even when they agree with us on values and issues.

Over the next few months we will be issuing a series of reports on different aspects of the Republican failure to modernize.

As George Santayana warned: “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

We do not need to lose five of the next six presidential elections to learn that we have some serious thinking to do.

Link:

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Mitt Romney’s legacy: No ‘Romneyists’

By

(The Washington Post) In a New York magazine piece this week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells eulogizes Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The headline pretty much sums it up: “So long, Mitt: In love with America, terrified for its future, relegated to its past.” But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.

Many times during the campaign, I slammed Romney for his ideological promiscuity. His flip-flopping was a character flaw that engendered mistrust among the Republican base and disbelief among the general electorate. As I wrote last month, politicians changing their minds on a core issue isn’t uncommon and should be respected. What Romney did during his six years running for president was change his mind on everything.

Romney’s change of position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, climate change, his own health care law — collectively, they called into question whether he had a core at all. They also made it impossible for those who believed in the former Massachusetts governor to point to anything he really believed in.
That’s why there’s no discernable Romney philosophy from 2012 that will define the Republican Party for decades to come. That’s why there are no Romneyites.

In the end, what befell Romney is his problem, not his party’s. Everyone knows where the GOP stands, even if they haven’t a clue where Romney does.

Link:

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

Joining the chorus of Roman Catholic clergy in Illinois criticizing President Barack Obama before next week's election, Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky ordered priests to read a letter to parishioners on Sunday before the presidential election, explaining that politicians who support abortion rights also reject Jesus.

"By virtue of your vow of obedience to me as your Bishop, I require that this letter be personally read by each celebrating priest at each Weekend Mass," Jenky wrote in a letter circulated to clergy in the Catholic Diocese of Peoria.

In the letter, Jenky cautions parishioners that Obama and a majority of U.S. senators will not reconsider the mandate that would require employers, including religious groups, to provide free birth control coverage in their health care plans. "This assault upon our religious freedom is simply without precedent in the American political and legal system," Jenky wrote.

"Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord," Jenky added. "They are objectively guilty of grave sin."

Earlier this year, Jenky delivered a controversial homily criticizing the contraception mandate. The bishop included Obama's policies in a list of historic challenges the Catholic Church has overcome in previous centuries, including Hitler and Stalin's campaigns.

Jenky is the third Illinois Catholic leader to offer pointed guidance for Catholic voters in recent weeks. Last month, Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki offered a commentary on the Democratic and Republican parties' platforms that he said wasn't intended as instruction, but guidance.

"There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils," Paprocki explained in the Springfield Diocese newspaper.

"Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against," he said. "But I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy."

Furthermore, in the Rockford Diocese, Vicar General Eric Barr compared Obama's support of religious freedom in Muslim countries to his lack of support for Catholic liberty.

"Meanwhile, Obamacare marches on, steamrolling Catholic morality and the First Amendment under its weight. How can that be tolerated by citizens?" Barr wrote.

"Nothing justifies this peculiar and unreal stance of the president," he said.

Spokeswoman Colleen Dolan said she doesn't expect Chicago's Cardinal Francis George to issue any statements before the election.

Link:

Obama Hit By Storm Backlash

By Dick Morris

Natural disasters usually follow the same political trajectory: First the incumbent experiences a bounce as he tours the impacted area, shows his concern, and pledges help to his beleaguered constituents. But then reality sets in and the shortages, delays, mishaps, deaths, and devastation becomes apparent and people turn against the incumbent.

George W. Bush had his Katrina.

And now Barack Obama has his Sandy.

Last week, Obama asserted a kind of ownership of the storm by touring New Jersey in the now infamous embrace of Republican stalwart Governor Chris Christie. Now that we are all appalled by the lack of food, gas, water, heat, and the basic essentials of life throughout the storm zone, Obama’s government doesn’t look so good anymore.

Why didn’t FEMA stockpile food, water, and gasoline? We had a week’s notice to prepare for Sandy.

There was no shortage of time. Did the government not realize that people needed to eat, drink, and drive?
All throughout America, we are asking these questions of our television sets as we watch the evolving story of human misery.

Meanwhile, Obama has resumed the campaign trail, pounding the opposition in the same relentless and partisan style which he used before the storm. When Obama said that voting was “the best revenge,” he threw away whatever presidentiality he displayed in touring storm damage earlier in the week.

As he entered the last week before the Congressional election of 1994, President Clinton returned to the U.S. after having presided over the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. He called me on his return and asked where he should campaign? Which incumbent Democrats should he try to help get re-elected?

I told him he should not campaign for any of them.

“No, you don’t understand,” he explained. I just came back from the Middle East and my ratings are up ten points. Before, I would have hurt the candidates I campaigned for, but not now. Now I can help them.”

“Your ratings are up because your trip hyped your presidentiality. Now, if you start campaigning, you’ll look like a politician and your ratings will come down again. You’ll end up doing more harm than good to those you are trying to help.”

He disregarded the advice and lost both houses of Congress in the elections.

Now Obama is making the same mistake. By campaigning, particularly by using the same harsh partisan rhetoric which has characterized his campaign, Obama is dragging down his ratings and with it his chances of victory.

Particularly when we see the juxtaposition of the mounting disaster in New York and New Jersey and the President out on the campaign trail attacking his opponents, we realize that Obama is a candidate before he is president, more worried about his second term than the welfare of his constituents.

In yesterday’s polling numbers, I saw a rise in Obama’s ratings and warned that the race was far from over. Now, we see him throwing it all away and resuming his crash into a single term presidency.

Link:
Related:

Friday, November 2, 2012

Romney ahead of Obama in Pennsylvania by Four

(Erie County Pennsylvania Republican Party) Susquehanna Polling and Research results for Pennsylvania released today shows Mitt Romney leading President Obama 49% to 45% among 1376 likely voters. Two percent are undecided and 3% are for other candidates.

In the same sample Republican Tom Smith leads Senator Casey by two percentage points in the race for the United States Senate seat from Pennsylvania. Smith is at 48% to Casey’s 46% according to this poll.

Diana Irey Vaughan (R) is tied with McCord at 45% each, David Freed(R) trails Kane by 45% to 47% and Maher(R)  leads DePasuale 45% to 44%.

This poll shows the highly competitive nature of all statewide races where there are no highly favored candidates and it also reveals that Pennsylvania is definitely in play for both the presidential and senatorial races which will determine control of the direction of this nation between two differing visions on energy independence, education, international trade, balancing the budget and support for small businesses.

Link:
Related:

In The Last Few Hours…Sudden Danger Signs In Polling

By Dick Morris

As Election Day approaches, we must be very sensitive to last minute changes in the polls. Remember that President George W. Bush fell from a 4 point lead into a tie over the last weekend in 2000 and Clinton rose from a tie to a 5 point win in the last weekend of 1992.

With that caution in mind, a danger signal comes from the latest Rasmussen Poll reflecting a two point gain for Obama. Whereas before the storm, Rasmussen showed Romney two ahead, he now has the race tied at 48-48.

That is troublesome.

And, in Pennsylvania, Romney led on Wednesday night by two points but on Thursday night’s polling, he was tied.We have also seem slippage for Romney in Michigan.

More troubling, Rasmussen shows a two point gain for Obama in job approval rising from 48% to 50% in the current poll.

All of these changes are, no doubt, related to hurricane Sandy.

Nobody really knows what the impact of hurricane Sandy will be on the election. Until its waves crashed into the New Jersey shore, the election was well in hand for the Romney campaign.

Coming off strong debate performances in which he debunked Obama’s negative attacks on him, the former Massachusetts governor was doing very well. Obama was reeling, unable to regain his footing, in search of a message, and bedeviled by questions about his increasingly obvious coverup of the Libyan attacks.

But after the storm? Who knows? We have never had a storm so close to a national election, much less one as close as this is.

Many a governor or mayor has recovered from political oblivion by actively running around his state seeming to coordinate storm relief. And just as many have fallen apart because of a failure to clean up promptly.

It may be that Obama’s visit to New Jersey and the high profile (figurative) kisses bestowed on him by nominal Republican Mayor Bloomberg of New York and real Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey might have helped him.

Perhaps he is erasing the image of a nit-picking, petulant president deep into negative charges against his opponent and replacing it with the image of an executive handling a tough situation for our country.

This race is not over yet! And with a media determined to re-elect Obama, we may see the president’s recovery continue unless we step up our own efforts to thwart it.

We are still likely to win. The undecided vote always goes against the incumbent and all the polling suggests we will be more successful than they will be at turning out our vote. But, early warning signs must be headed.
Bottom line: WORK LIKE HELL!!!

Link:
Related:

Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

By Michael Barone

(The Examiner) Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.

But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.

That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.

That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

The Obama campaign strategy, from the beginning, has recognized these handicaps, running barrages of early anti-Romney ads in states that Obama carried narrowly. But other states, not so heavily barraged, have come into contention.

Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I'll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages -- fully aware that I'm likely to get some wrong.
Indiana (11 electoral votes). Uncontested. Romney.

North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Obama has abandoned this target. Romney.

Florida (29). The biggest target state has trended Romney since the Denver debate. I don't see any segment of the electorate favoring Obama more than in 2008, and I see some (South Florida Jews) favoring him less. Romney.

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Virginia (13). Post-debate polling mildly favors Romney, and early voting is way down in heavily Democratic Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk. Northern Virginia Asians may trend Romney. Romney.

Colorado (9). Unlike 2008, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, and more Republicans than Democrats have voted early. The Republican trend in 2010 was squandered by weak candidates for governor and senator. Not this time. Romney.

Iowa (6). The unexpected Romney endorsements by the Des Moines Register and three other newspapers gave voice to buyer's remorse in a state Obama carried by 10 points. Democrats' traditional margin in early voting has declined. Romney.

Minnesota (10). A surprise last-minute media buy for the Romney campaign. But probably a bridge too far. Obama.

New Hampshire (4). Polls are very tight here. I think superior Republican intensity will prevail. Romney.
Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.

Nevada (6). Democratic early-voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas' Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions' turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they'll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.

Wisconsin (10). Recent polling is discouraging for Republicans. But Gov. Scott Walker handily survived the recall effort in June with a great organizational push. Democrats depend heavily on margins in inner-city Milwaukee (population down) and the Madison university community. But early voting is down in university towns in other states. The Obama campaign is prepared to turn out a big student vote, but you don't see many Obama signs on campuses. Romney.

Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), New Jersey (14). Uncontested. Obama.

Michigan (16). Romney chose Pennsylvania, where there's no auto bailout issue. Obama.

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.

Link:
Related:

Michael Voris: Final Days!


Related:

Gallup Shows Big Party Shift – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

By Dick Morris on November 2, 2012

Dear Friend,

In this video commentary, I discuss some important poll findings from Gallup that is a game changer for the election. Tune in!



Link:


Friday, October 26, 2012

Bishop Ricken: "your own soul" is "in jeopardy" if you vote for someone in favor of these positions

DIOCESE OF GREEN BAY

P.O. Box 23825 • Green Bay, WI 54305-3825 • 920-272-8194 • FAX 920-435-1330

OFFICE OF THE BISHOP

October 24, 2012

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

AN IMPORTANT MOMENT

It is almost time to vote and to make our choices for president and other political offices both local and national.

You have often heard it said that this is a turning point in our country’s history and I could not agree more.

The Church is not a political organism, but as you hopefully have learned in the US Bishops Faithful Citizenship material (which we have made widely available to you in the parishes, in the Compass and on-line), the Church has the responsibility to speak out regarding moral issues, especially on those issues that impact the “common good” and the “dignity of the human person.”

I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.

They are:

1. abortion
2. euthanasia
3. embryonic stem cell research
4. human cloning
5. homosexual “marriage”

These are intrinsically evil. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.” Intrinsically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger.

But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.

The other position to keep in mind is the protection of religious liberty. The recent aggressive moves by the government to impose the HHS mandate, especially the move to redefine religion so that religion is confined more and more to the four walls of the Church, is a dangerous precedent. This will certainly hurt the many health care services to the poor given by our Catholic hospitals. Our Catholic hospitals in the Diocese give millions of dollars per year in donated services to the poor. In the new plan, only Catholic people can be treated by Catholic institutions.

It has never been our mission to be exclusive of those who are not of our faith. This mandate also places Catholic business owners in a very precarious position in that they, too, will have to pay for those medical “services” which violate Catholic teaching. This has never been the American way and now these moves and others by the present government, will significantly alter and marginalize the role of religious institutions in our society.

These positions are indicators of a broader societal disposition to remove God from the public square and from any relation to society whatever. It is precisely religion and the free exercise thereof which has made this country great in the past. Many people in our Diocese are presently without work. Our Catholic Charities is serving more and more people who are unemployed or under employed and can barely keep up with the demands. Work is so critical to the family and to the sense of human dignity. An economy which does the most for the common good is an economy that works and provides people gainful employment for the country’s citizens. A government that works pays its bills and models for citizens what it means to be responsible and contributive.

Let us pray for the electorate and let’s take action, that we may vote for good and moral leaders for this great country which will only remain great, if she continues to be and to do the good.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

The Most Reverend David L. Ricken, DD, JCL

Bishop of Green Bay

Link:

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Barbara Walters Explains How the Debates Changed Mitt Romney's Image

From Rush Limbaugh:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Interesting yesterday on The View on ABC, Barbara Walters talking about Mitt Romney and the three presidential debates, and Barbara Walters is explaining here to the audience of The View why Romney did well, why Romney won the debates.  Barbara Walters is explaining the impact that Romney had and why his debate strategy worked.  Now, I want you to understand something as you listen to this.  As irritating as it might be to you, you go into that debate on Monday night, and the partisans have made up their minds.  There's nothing that can happen in that debate, for example, to make you change your mind, vote for Obama, there's nothing.


By the same token, there's nothing gonna happen in that debate to make a committed Obama voter change his or her mind.  Who's left?  Well, these people that are amazingly undecided, can't pull the trigger, don't know what to do, undecided for a whole host of reasons. That's the target audience, and a lot of them, we're told, were women.  So you have to keep that in mind when you listen here, because I would venture to say that the target audience that Romney was aiming for in that debate Monday night was the people that watch The View.  I want you to listen to her and listen to her audience reaction.

WALTERS:  Before these debates, the general impression of Romney was that he wasn't too smart, and that he was very stiff, and that if he happened to be elected president, it would be a disaster.  Now, you know, I don't give my opinions here.  What you have after these three debates is that people feel, whether they want to vote for him or not, that this is a qualified man, this is an intelligent man, and this is a man who we now don't describe as stiff and totally out of touch.  What is the most important thing for Romney is that he's a different person seen by the public now than he was before the three debates.

AUDIENCE: (applause)

RUSH:  I'm looking at the face of the Official Program Observer, Mr. Snerdley, who's got a deep frown on his face.  Why are you frowning at me?  Yes, that was ribald applause.  But I find this fascinating.  I knew people thought Romney was stiff, but I didn't know people thought he was dumb.  That is an albatross around the Republican Party's neck ever since Bush.  I mean, that accusation that Bush was a dumb hick cowboy and so forth because of the way he spoke and the deer-in-the-headlight eyes during TV appearances and press conferences, and they used that to great effect.  Because Bush is not that at all.  He's not stupid. He's not dumb. It's ridiculous.  But it stuck, particularly with a lot of moderates and leftists.  And now apparently Barbara Walters said a lot of people thought the same thing about Romney -- stiff and out of touch, not very smart -- and he's overcome all that.  In these three debates, he's overcome it all.

This is profound.  What she's also saying and didn't say, that what we knew about Romney was what Obama was telling us about Romney via Obama's TV ads.  And what she's saying here is, we saw a Romney that bears no resemblance to what we were told he was by the Obama campaign.  And the audience on The View, believe me, was the target audience for the Romney camp in that debate Monday night, people that watch this show, people like them, and they all applauded Barbara Wawa there.  I just throw this out to you because it's all part of the mix.  Here is Pat Caddell.  This is last night on Cavuto on Fox, and Cavuto asked him about the last debate.  He wants to know, did it change anything?


CADDELL:  If Obama does not get the traditional presidential incumbent bounce at the beginning of the week, it's Katie, bar the door.  This is Romney's election to lose and until October 3rd he was losing it.  Now he's back into it.  Look what's happening in the states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, states that have had no money.  If I told you two weeks before the election in 2008 that Indiana and North Carolina would go for Barack Obama, you would have said I was crazy.  This is on the verge of tipping. We're somewhere between '80 and '04 and right now if the president didn't get what he shoulda gotten last night, uh-oh.

RUSH:  Well, he didn't.  He didn't get a bounce out of that debate on Monday night.  It was probably zero impact for either of them.  It's the last debate, it happened, it's gone, nobody's reacting to it one way or the other.  There was some strident reaction during the debate, shortly thereafter, but the overall consensus was that Romney did what he had to do, did it in spades, didn't get hurt. Obama didn't help himself, so Caddell says it's over.  And Caddell is right.  You go look at where Obama is spending time.  These are states that he was supposed to have owned and wrapped up.

The biggest thing that's working against Barack Obama right now, and I say this over and over again to make the point, you cannot simply examine Obama within the context of this campaign to understand where Obama is with the American people.  You gotta go back all the way to the campaign of 2008 and the first couple, three months of his regime.  That's the Obama that everybody's comparing to, is the 2008 Obama, who was Mr. Perfect, who was Mr. Messiah, who was gonna heal the planet, lower the sea levels, cure all the ills, get rid of partisanship, get rid of racism, the world is gonna love us, and look what he's become.  He has become exactly what he ran against in 2008.

He's become nothing but a mudslinger. He's nothing but a down-and-dirty typical politician, throwing mud, throwing dirt, desperate to hang on, not telling people the truth about things.  He is the exact opposite of the way he was presented in 2008.  He's the exact opposite of the way he portrayed himself in 2008.  If you want to have an understanding of how people who voted for Obama eagerly in 2008 are looking at him this year, you have to include their frame of reference for the guy.  And their frame of reference is not just these three debates.

Their frame of reference starts with a campaign in 2007 all the way into 2008 and the election.  And even the first couple, three months with the stimulus bill, Porkulus, shovel-ready jobs, all this great stuff was gonna happen.  None of it has.  He's not the person anybody thought that he was and it's been nothing but downhill.  Plus there's no record to run on. He's got nothing that's happened that he can say, "You want four more years of this?"  That's why he is in big trouble in all of these states that should have been automatics, just given incumbency.
END TRANSCRIPT

Link:

Texas Attorney General: International Vote Monitors Subject to Criminal Prosecution for Violating State Law

VIENNA/AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - International election monitors took a dim view on Wednesday of Texas' threat to prosecute them if they observe voting in the state a bit too closely on November 6.

The exchange pitted the Vienna-based human rights watchdog Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who warned the OSCE not to interfere with polling in state elections.

"The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable," Janez Lenarcic, director of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) monitoring arm, said in a statement.

"The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections."

Abbott told Reuters on Wednesday that he is considering legal action against the group if it doesn't concede that it will follow the state's laws.

"They act like they may not be subject to Texas law and our goal all along is to make clear to them that when they're in Texas, they're subject to Texas law, and we're not giving them an exemption," he said.

Abbott is skeptical about why the group wants to look at elections in Texas.

"Our concern is that this isn't some benign observation but something intended to be far more prying and maybe even an attempt to suppress voter integrity," he said.

In a letter on Tuesday to the Warsaw-based ODIHR, Abbott had noted that OSCE representatives were not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place.

"It may be a criminal offense for OSCE's representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE's representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law," he added.

He cited reports that OSCE monitors had met with organizations challenging voter identification laws. Texas' voter ID law was blocked earlier this year by a federal court, and Abbott has said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional," Abbott wrote.

Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade also wrote to the United Nations-affiliated OSCE/ODIHR on Tuesday, saying that it's key for Texans to understand that the organization has no jurisdiction over the state.

Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry tweeted on Tuesday: ‏"No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @TXsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue."

The 56-member OSCE routinely sends monitors to elections and noted November's elections would be the sixth U.S. vote that ODIHR has observed "without incident" since 2002.

For next month's elections it has a core team of 13 experts from 10 OSCE countries based in Washington and 44 long-term observers deployed across the country, it said.

Lenarcic had shared his "grave concern" about the threat of Texas prosecutions with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the OSCE said.

"Our observers are required to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way," Lenarcic said. "They are in the United States to observe these elections, not to interfere in them."

(Reporting By Michael Shields and Corrie MacLaggan; Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols and Jim Forsyth)

Link:

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

David Letterman: Obama’s kind of lying about this GM bankruptcy thing, huh?

Woah, he's lost Letterman.  My theory is that some elite liberals have taken a good look at Mitt Romney, his background, education, personal and past moderate governing history, lifestyle, and have concluded, "He's not so bad. He's not so different from us after all."   Similar to the statement from George Soros from six months ago. 

And they also don't appreciate being lied to.

From Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters via Ed Morrissey at HotAir:
Alternate headline: Even Late Night Comedy Shows Must Interview Obama Off the Record. Noel Sheppard picks up David Letterman’s belated realization that Barack Obama — one of his favorite guests — has misrepresented Mitt Romney’s position on GM and the auto bailout for months.  Letterman tells MSNBCs Rachel Maddow that he finds it disappointing when a challenger proves to be more honest than an incumbent President:

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: Here’s what upset me last night, this playing fast and loose with facts. And the President Obama cites the op-ed piece that Romney wrote about Detroit, “Let them go bankrupt, let them go bankrupt,” and last night he brings it up again. “Oh, no, Governor, you said let them go bankrupt, blah blah blah, let them go bankrupt.” And Mitt said, “No, no, check the thing, check the thing, check the thing.”
Now, I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth; you want the contender to be lying. And so what we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece. I felt discouraged.
RACHEL MADDOW: Because the “Let Detroit go bankrupt” headline you feel like was inappropriate?
LETTERMAN: Well, the fact the President is invoking it and swearing that he was right and that Romney was wrong and I thought, well, he’s the president of course he’s right. Well, it turned out no, he was taking liberties with that.
If you want your President to be telling the truth, then it’s time for a new President.  And when a Democrat has lost David Letterman, and when Letterman tells people that the Republican was more honest than the Democrat, that is going to leave a big mark on Obama’s efforts to woo low-information voters, the very people Obama is trying to woo with his appearances on Entertainment Tonight, the late-night comedy shows, and MTV.
 
Who knows?  Maybe Jay Leno will ask Obama a couple of tough questions tonight about his misrepresentations in the debates, and his personal attacks on Mitt Romney for the last several months.  Pretty soon, the only safe interview for Obama will be on Sesame Street with Big Bird … and he’ll still insist on quote approval first.
Link:

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Rasmussen: R 50% O 46%

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 46%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

Other than brief convention bounces, this is the first time either candidate has led by more than three points in months."

Link:

Monday, October 22, 2012

Dan Rather Implies Ohio GOP Could Steal the Election



By Charlie Spiering

(Beltway Confidential) Former CBS newsman Dan Rather warned Facebook fans of his show on axs.tv that Mitt Romney could conceivably take Ohio, particularly since the state is controlled by Republicans.

“Keep in mind: The whole upper tier of Ohio state government is in the hands of the GOP now,” Rather explained in a Facebook post this morning. “In very close voting they have the power to influence what votes are counted and how.”

Rather warned, “Remember Ohio, Bush v. Kerry in 2004 and Florida, Bush v. Gore in 2000.”

Link:

Friday, October 19, 2012

Michael Voris: Let the Persecution Begin


By Michael Voris

(ChurchMilitant.TV) Hello everyone and welcome to The Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. I’m Michael Voris.

Everything wrong with the Church throughout the world today is summed up in the fiasco that was the Al Smith dinner in New York last night - the event where public enemy number one of Christ and His Holy Roman Catholic Church got to use and abuse the bride of Christ all under the watchful and supporting eye of a prince of the Church.

In the remaining couple of days before the lead up, some intrepid researchers did a little investigating - only to discover that a number of muckety-mucks who comprise the board of directors of the Al Smith foundation which sponsors the dinner are big-time Obama worshipers.

For example, exceedingly wealthy real estate developer John Zuccotti, who helped the hapless anti-Church Catholic Joe Biden when he ran for president a few years back.

John Zuccotti has all the admiration of the money people in NYC. He mingles with the in crowd.

Then there is Robert Wright who was the grand pooba of the television network NBC for nearly 20 years right up until five years ago. That’s quite an impressive resume, that one job alone.

Next is Peter Kiernan III, a former Goldman-Sachs moneyman and investment banker who has piloted many many projects that have assets into the billions.

And of course, we can’t leave out Al Smith IV, the chairman of the Foundation.

Federal Election Commission records he has showered donations on every pro-abortion democrat New York has offered up: Charles Schumer, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, even the notorious Congressman Jerry Nadler who has never missed chance to support the executions of pre-born babies in every congressional vote that has come up.

All these guys bankrolled by Al Smith IV. You wonder what his great grandfather who the event is named after would think of him.

But see, Catholic associations cozying up to and hopping in bed with rich or influential people is nothing new in America. We see it in the Knights of Columbus who refuse to expel from their midst pro-abortion and pro same-sex marriage Catholic politicians from their midst... hiding behind the canard that the bishops don’t do anything about them.. so the KofC doesn’t have the right.

Total garbage that by the way.

And of course... there is Notre Dame and the filthy rich board of trustees there... a large number of whom are big-time Chicago democratic machine operatives who are of course all in the tank for Obama and his child-murdering policies. They were the ones who orchestrated the entire May 2009 insult to the Mother of God by bringing Obama to campus to not just speak, but drape him in honors, complete with the seal of the university of the Mother of God.

But when you turn to the situation of the Al Smith dinner, you are especially revolted.

This is nothing more than a sellout of the faith presided over by a Cardinal of the Church, Timothy Dolan, who is touted as some kind of conservative wonderman.

He has cooperated in this insult to the faith with these moneychangers... who are big time Obama cheerleaders. His Eminence has openly declared in an Wall Street Journal article that he and other bishops failed miserably to teach the faith and defend the Church in the area of sexual morality.

He and other bishops are constantly droning on about the need to re-establish a Catholic identity. You don’t establish a Catholic identity by selling out the faith for your own personal popularity and to hob nob with a bunch of wall street moguls who spend their efforts and money to ensure that enemies of the faith keep getting elected.

Cardinal Dolan is a priest who has a duty to catechize and teach these men and others like them the faith that they either never got taught properly and or simply rejected... whichever the case.

If they won’t listen, then he needs to shake the dust from his feet... the words of the Master... not mine. But he has not only not done that, he has acquiesced to their bringing in Obama and refused the pleas of tens of thousands of faithful Catholics to rescind the invitation.

He has ignored the sheep and opened the front door for the wolf... complete red carpet and all. And here is why we say... this Al Smith Dinner is a microcosm of all that is wrong in the Church.

The faithful are ignored... the wicked are elevated and mingled with and supported... and the leaders are the most culpable of all. Since the Church is quite obviously in dire need of cleansing... and since those who are charged with keeping Her pure will not do the job... then Our Lord Himself will have to sweep them aside and do it Himself.

Often when the Church has been in need of purification... Our Lord has permitted persecution to ensue. Can anyone look around at the Church today and say she is not in need of massive purification.

Bring it on. We should be happy to be victims for the Faith. Let the persecution begin!

GOD Love you,

I’m Michael Voris

Link:
Related:

Catholics for Obama

From The Remnant

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Clinton: I Thought Obama 'Was Going to Cry'

By DANIEL HALPER

(The Weekly Standard) At a campaign event for Barack Obama's reelection campaign, Bill Clinton said that Mitt Romney's argument "is true, we're not fixed":



"Governor Romney's argument is, we're not fixed, so fire him and put me in," said Clinton. "It is true we're not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don't now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it's not fixed."

UPDATE: A Romney spokesman comments: "We agree with former President Bill Clinton.  The economy has not been fixed under President Barack Obama.  Today, more than 23 million Americans are struggling for work, poverty has increased and food stamps are at record levels.  Mitt Romney believes we can do better by creating 12 million new jobs with higher take-home pay, cutting spending to put our nation on course for a balanced budget, and actually fixing our economy."

Link: