Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Friday, February 6, 2015
Governor Jindal to Barack Obama: ‘the Medieval Christian threat is under control’
By Eliana Johnson
(National Review) Bobby Jindal on Friday released a statement responding to the president’s remarks on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in which he cautioned Americans from getting on a “high horse” when taking a stance against radical Islam because people have committed “terrible deeds” in the name of Christianity, too.
“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”
Jindal, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, caused a stir on a recent trip to London when he assailed so-called “no go” zones and, in subsequent remarks both in Europe and in the U.S., insisted on the importance of assimilation among immigrants.
“You’ve got people who want to come to our country but not adopt our values,” the Louisiana governor told CNN last month, calling the idea ”dangerous.”
Expect this to be a major theme of a Jindal presidential campaign, if and when it gets off the ground.
Links:
Image from RedState:
Monday, March 24, 2014
Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
VATICAN CITY (CBS St. Louis) — The Vatican’s chief justice feels that President Barack Obama’s policies have been hostile toward Christians.
In an interview with Polonia Christiana magazine –and transcribed by Life Site News — Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Obama “promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.”
“It is true that the policies of the president of the United States have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies,” Burke told the magazine.
The former archbishop of St. Louis stated that Obama is trying to “restrict” religion.
“Now he wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions,” Burke said. Burke took a swipe against Obama’s Affordable Care Act over the law’s birth control mandate, saying “such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago.”
“In a democracy, such a lack of awareness is deadly,” Burke told the magazine. “It leads to the loss of the freedom which a democratic government exists to protect. It is my hope that more and more of my fellow citizens, as they realize what is happening, will insist on electing leaders who respect the truth of the moral law as it is respected in the founding principles of our nation.”
Burke also believes there is hope that abortion will be overturned in the U.S.
“There is hope that the evil anti-life laws of the United States can be overthrown and that the anti-life movement which urges yet more of such legislation can be resisted,” Burke said. “The pro-life movement in the United States has been working since 1973 to reverse the unjust decision of the Supreme Court which struck down state laws prohibiting procured abortion. It is true that the Supreme Court decision stands, but it is also true that the pro-life movement has grown ever stronger in the United States, that is, that more and more citizens, especially young citizens, have been awakened to the truth about the grave evil of procured abortion.”
Pope Francis removed Burke from the Congregation for Bishops last December.
Obama will be meeting Pope Francis for the first time at the Vatican on Thursday.
Link:
Related:
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Catholic hospitals accept birth control compromise
By Rachel Zoll, AP Religion Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a split with U.S. bishops, a trade group for Catholic hospitals said Tuesday it can accept the Obama's administration latest compromise on birth control coverage by religious employers.
"We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage," said the Catholic Health Association.
Under President Barack Obama's health care law, most employers are required to cover birth control as a free preventive service for women workers. Churches and other houses of worship are fully exempt from the mandate. But religiously-affiliated hospitals, universities and social service groups are not.
The compromise, in a final regulation from the administration, attempts to create a buffer for these employers. It requires insurers or the health plan's outside administrator to pay for birth control coverage, and creates a mechanism for reimbursing them.
However, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops are suing to overturn the entire requirement, saying it trespasses on freedom of religion.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops, said the hospital association had notified the bishops' conference about its stand late Monday.
Walsh said the bishops "did not contribute to the (group's) analysis or the statement itself." Catholic dioceses, charities and universities are among the plaintiffs in more than 60 lawsuits challenging the rule. The cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.
The regulation has become another contentious issue in the health care overhaul Obama signed into law in 2010.
The Catholic hospitals' group, led by Sister Carol Keehan, joined other prominent Catholics in defying the bishops to support passage of the health law at a critical stage of the congressional debate.
More recently, the group had joined the bishops and leaders of other faiths in pressing the Department of Health and Human Services for a broader religious exemption from birth control coverage.
The birth control coverage requirement was widely praised by women's groups, and supported by medical societies as good for both mothers and children.
The administration's original birth control rule, introduced early last year, exempted churches and other houses of worship. However, faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits were required to comply.
After a public outcry, the Obama administration floated a series of compromises that resulted in a final accommodation June 28.
The latest version of the regulation attempts to create a buffer between the faith-affiliated charities and contraceptive coverage by requiring insurers or another third-party to provide contraceptive coverage instead of the religious employer.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said in a statement last week that the bishops were still studying the regulation, adding that it does not appear to address all their concerns about religious freedom. The bishops have also sought a religious exemption for owners of for-profit businesses.
The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents Protestant churches across the country, announced Monday it also rejects the compromise.
The Catholic Church prohibits the use of artificial contraception. Evangelicals generally accept the use of birth control, but some object to specific methods such as the morning-after contraceptive pill, which they argue is tantamount to abortion, and is covered under the policy.
The hospital trade group's decision was first reported by the National Catholic Reporter.
Link:
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a split with U.S. bishops, a trade group for Catholic hospitals said Tuesday it can accept the Obama's administration latest compromise on birth control coverage by religious employers.
"We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage," said the Catholic Health Association.
Under President Barack Obama's health care law, most employers are required to cover birth control as a free preventive service for women workers. Churches and other houses of worship are fully exempt from the mandate. But religiously-affiliated hospitals, universities and social service groups are not.
The compromise, in a final regulation from the administration, attempts to create a buffer for these employers. It requires insurers or the health plan's outside administrator to pay for birth control coverage, and creates a mechanism for reimbursing them.
However, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops are suing to overturn the entire requirement, saying it trespasses on freedom of religion.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops, said the hospital association had notified the bishops' conference about its stand late Monday.
Walsh said the bishops "did not contribute to the (group's) analysis or the statement itself." Catholic dioceses, charities and universities are among the plaintiffs in more than 60 lawsuits challenging the rule. The cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.
The regulation has become another contentious issue in the health care overhaul Obama signed into law in 2010.
More recently, the group had joined the bishops and leaders of other faiths in pressing the Department of Health and Human Services for a broader religious exemption from birth control coverage.
The birth control coverage requirement was widely praised by women's groups, and supported by medical societies as good for both mothers and children.
The administration's original birth control rule, introduced early last year, exempted churches and other houses of worship. However, faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits were required to comply.
After a public outcry, the Obama administration floated a series of compromises that resulted in a final accommodation June 28.
The latest version of the regulation attempts to create a buffer between the faith-affiliated charities and contraceptive coverage by requiring insurers or another third-party to provide contraceptive coverage instead of the religious employer.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said in a statement last week that the bishops were still studying the regulation, adding that it does not appear to address all their concerns about religious freedom. The bishops have also sought a religious exemption for owners of for-profit businesses.
The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents Protestant churches across the country, announced Monday it also rejects the compromise.
The Catholic Church prohibits the use of artificial contraception. Evangelicals generally accept the use of birth control, but some object to specific methods such as the morning-after contraceptive pill, which they argue is tantamount to abortion, and is covered under the policy.
The hospital trade group's decision was first reported by the National Catholic Reporter.
Link:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Justice Antonin Scalia Wears Saint Thomas More's Hat to Inauguration
From Fr. Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS:
Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond School of Law writes:
The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.
Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.Link:
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Buchanan: "There Would Be A Revolution" If Government Confiscated Weapons
From Real Clear Politics:
PAT BUCHANAN: There are three million ArmaLite rifles -- those Bushmaster types -- out there right now, and people are buying them like hotcakes. Every gun show, the sales are up enormously. Forty-one percent, they were up in December -- for last December -- which was a record year. John, what is common though, Eleanor [Clift] is correct, the push is going to come on three things: grandfather in the assault weapons that are here now; to try to outlaw assault weapons, outlaw magazines that carry more than 11 or 12 bullets; and also background checks at gun shows.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: With no Second Amendment, Congress could pass a law, as limited as this: banning assault rifles or as sweeping as prohibiting all private firearm ownership and requiring the surrender of all privately held firearms.
BUCHANAN: There would be a revolution in this country!
MCLAUGHLIN: Baloney! That doesn't mean you can't own one, but you have to put it in first and then go try --
BUCHANAN: There are 270 million guns in this country right now, John, and they're adding to them at a rate of 16 million a year. (The McLaughlin Group, weekend of January 5, 2013)
Link:
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
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:
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons
Manya A. Brachear | Chicago Tribune
"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:
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 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:
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:
(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:
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:
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:
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Pastor who delivered benediction at Obama’s inauguration says all white people will go to Hell
Obama awarded Lowery the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 / AP
By Joel Gehrke
(Beltway Confidential) Pastor Joseph Lowery, a civil rights movement hero who delivered the
benediction at President Obama’s inauguration, reportedly said that he
is shocked that any black Americans would stay home with Obama on the
ballot and suggested that all or most white people would go to hell.
The local outlet paraphrases Lowery’s comments. “Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell,” the Monroe County Reporter (Ga.) says in covering a rally in Forsyth, Georgia. “Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.”
The local mayor, who attended the rally, rejected that statement from Lowery. “The Bible doesn’t say anything about white or black to go to heaven,” Mayor John Howard said. “I have great number of black and white friends. I’ve been in the military. I make friends with everybody. I’m too old for enemies.”
The 91-year-old Lowery worked with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and played a key role in various important moments in the civil rights movement, such as the march from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery, Ala. “Lowery was awarded the Medal of Freedom in 2009 by Obama and was elected earlier this year to lead the state’s delegation to the Democratic national convention,” the Georgia Tipsheet recalled.
He sees this election in explicitly racial terms. “I don’t know what kind of a n—– wouldn’t vote with a black man running,” Lowery said, according to the Reporter. “All that he did with the stimulus was genius. Nobody intelligent would risk this country with Romney.”
Lowery’s benediction at Obama’s inauguration emphasized peaceful relations between all Americans. “And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance,” he prayed in 2009. “And as we leave this mountain top, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family.”
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:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
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.
Link:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)