Election 2012

Dead Even in Gallup Since the Debate

 

Gallup has announced that in their tracker Mitt Romney has pulled dead even with Obama since the debate:

Registered voters’ preferences for president are evenly split in the first three days of Gallup tracking since last Wednesday’s presidential debate. In the three days prior to the debate, Barack Obama had a five-percentage-point edge among registered voters.

An Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll finds roughly two in three Americans reporting that they watched the Oct. 3 debate, similar to what Gallup measured for each of the three 2008 presidential debates. Those who viewed the debate overwhelmingly believe Romney did a better job than Obama, 72% to 20%. Republicans were nearly unanimous in judging Romney the winner. But even Democrats rated Romney as doing a better job than Obama, 49% to 39%. ']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

The Look

 

In case anyone is still confused as to who won the debate.

Top Ten Reasons Obama Lost the Debate

YouTube Preview Image

 

10.  He assumed that it was a gag twentieth anniversary celebration thrown together by Michelle.

9.    His puppy chow snack an hour before the debate didn’t agree with him.

8.    He was distracted by receiving debate advice from Biden in his earpiece.

7.    Newt Gingrich told him he had nothing to worry about.

6.    Jim Lehrer gave Obama advance knowledge of the questions he would ask, but then Lehrer forgot the questions.

5.    Rocky Mountain High. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

Mitt the Bulldozer

YouTube Preview Image

This is the latest attack ad by the Democrat National Committee.  How clueless are those guys?  Do they think that Romney being assertive in the debate will be regarded by anyone, other than the yellowest of yellow dog Democrats, as being a bad thing?  Actually Obama talked four minutes longer than Romney did in the debate last night.  It only seemed like Romney talked more since he was actually saying things of substance instead of making pointless meandering statements that appeared to be Obama’s main strategy last night.

Romney Victorious

YouTube Preview Image

 

It was a total rout.  Romney dominated the debate from beginning to end.  Obama was attempting to sit on a lead which is the worst strategy against an able opponent, and Romney demonstrated that he is a very able opponent tonight in spades.  A few thoughts:

1.  Best Performance Since Reagan-I have watched every presidential debate.  Except for the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate I have never seen any debate where one candidate dominated as much as Romney did tonight.

2.  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs-Romney kept the focus fixed throughout the debate on the 23,000,000 unemployed and continually returned to the subject of job creation.

3.  Teleprompter Where Art Thou?-Obama gave a wretched performance.  He rarely looked at Romney, while Romney always looked at him.  Obama either looked at the moderator or had his head bent down, looking at his notes, with a half smirk on his face.  His answers meandered and often had no point.  Obama needs to dump Lurch, (Senator Kerry), and get someone to coach him who can actually prepare him for a debate.  His performance was pathetic, and even his most rabid partisans, as indicated by the video of Chris “Tingle up my leg” Matthews at the beginning of this post indicates, realize it.

4.  Mitt the King Wonk-The amount of detailed knowledge that Romney had at his fingertips was astounding.  I know it astounded Obama, the pretender policy wonk.

5.  Lehrer the Zombie-Before the debate began I thought Jim Lehrer was looking incredibly old.  Romney was able to push him aside effortlessly and talk about what he wanted to talk about.  Lehrer attempted to throw a few lifelines to Obama when Obama was floundering but his efforts were futile.  Lehrer has moderated many presidential debates, but I guarantee the Democrats will make certain this is his last one. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

Obama Video: Typical Hack Politician

 

 

The Daily Caller has a video of Obama speaking before an audience of black ministers at Hampton College in June of 2007.  In that speech Obama acts as if the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is his best bud, tries to speak in the stereotypical cadences of a black preacher at a revival meeting, and attempts to inflame the racial paranoia of his audience:

In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential  candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev.  Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims  because of racism.

“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts  in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia.  By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous  amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black  New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the  American family.”

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s  carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic  groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public,  Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits  by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The  effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

The Biden That Keeps on Giving

YouTube Preview Image

Veep and beloved National Clown Joe Biden is continuing to do his best to elect Mitt Romney President.  His immortal phrase about the middle class being buried for the past four years will live in campaign lore as long as we have presidential campaigns.  Like all true comedic geniuses, Joe makes certain that his hilarious routines rest on truth.

YouTube Preview Image

I wonder if Joe coordinated his remark with Speaker of the House Joe Boehner who released this on September 24th: →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

October 28, 1980: Carter-Reagan Debate

YouTube Preview Image

Tonight we are having the first of three Presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  They have both been engaged in debate preparation, and I would imagine that in both camps close study has been made of the best presidential debate performance ever by a candidate:  that of Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter on October 28, 1980 in their one and only debate.  Reagan was everything in the debate that a candidate should be:  relaxed, in command of the facts, humorous and a master of devastating one liners:  “There you go again!”  Reagan at the end asked the essential question that almost all American voters do ask themselves when judging a president:  “Am I better off than I was four years ago?”  American presidential elections usually come down to the state of the economy, and Reagan understood this, and used the poor state of the economy in 1980 with devastating impact against Carter.  I was a Reagan supporter and watched the debate with keen interest.  After the debate I had no doubt that Reagan was going to win, and probably overwhelmingly.  Here is a video of the complete debate: →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

A New Low-Part II

YouTube Preview Image

This is beyond parody.  The above video is an attack ad against Mitt Romney by a man who purports to have picked up his garbage.  His complaint?  Well Mitt Romney  never came out to shake his hand or give him something to drink.  I guess Romney helping to pay his salary isn’t enough.  The stupidity behind this ad is mind boggling.  Will we next have an attack ad from Romney’s newspaper boy who is insulted because Mitt hasn’t written him into his will?  Sheesh! →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

The Reality Gap

We’ve reached the point in the election where the press decides to mostly report on how the election is being perceived rather than on any particular events, and since the president is doing well in the polls this results in a lot of “desperate Republicans do foolish things” stories. The flavor of the week seems to be the media’s discovery that somewhere out there in the right-leaning internet, there are people who have made a hobby of “re-weighting” polls in order to reflect what the re-weighters think is a more likely partisan composition of the electorate come election day.

There is, yes, a certain sad desperation about this. Now that election reporting is often more about “the race” than about issues or events, being behind in the race is crippling and so people come up with way to try to explain it away. Those with long memories (eight years counts as long in our modern age) may recall that when Bush was so rude as to be ahead of Kerry in the 2004 race, Michael Moore and those like-minded rolled out a theory that all the polls were wrong because an army of voters who only used cell phones and not land lines (and thus couldn’t be polled) were out there ready to vote against Bush.

However, just as everyone’s getting ready to announce that Republicans, in their constant flight from the “reality based community” have decided they don’t believe in polling, we find out that the left has its own reality problem: They’re convinced that the economy has been getting better over the last couple months, despite the fact there’s little reason to believe this. Gallup and the Pew Research Center both have data out showing that Democrats’ opinions of the economy and the job market have suddenly started improving, despite almost universally bad news over the last several months.

As you can see, partisan affiliation wasn’t much of a dividing factor in assessments of the economy a year ago, but now that a bad economy might mean President Obama not being re-elected, Democrats obediently come to the conclusion that the economy really isn’t that bad. According to Pew, the same divide now exists on the job market, consumer prices, the financial market, real estate, and even gas prices. You would think that at least people could agree on what the level of gas prices is, but no, apparently not, though the gap is narrower there than elsewhere: 89% of Republicans say they hear mostly bad news about gas prices while 65% of Democrats do.

The trope goes that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. However, as the political divide has become wider and more entrenched opposite sides increasingly do have their own facts, as reality become filtered through a partisan lens.

Obama Forward!

For only $25.00 you too can have from the official Obama campaign store a portrait of Fearless Leader with his campaign slogan Forward!   Sheesh!  If the Obama campaign must steal  a Nazi slogan, the least they could do is come up with an updated version of the old Hitler Jugend Vorwarts! Vorwarts!

YouTube Preview Image →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

A Fundamental Threat to American Democracy

Jimmy Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell calls out the Mainstream Media covering up the Obama administration’s lies on Libya as a fundamental threat to American Democracy:

PAT CADDELL: Thank you.  Glad to be with you.  This could take a long time, but we don’t have that, so let me just get right to this.  I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody.  Which is exactly what they should be.  They were unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.  That changed in 1980.  There’s a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of  “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.  But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous.  We have a First Amendment for one reason.  We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.  We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and it’s the highest in history.  For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.”  Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%.  So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.  I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying. ']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

Now This is Bare Knuckles

Hey Mitt, perhaps your ad men might want to take a look at the ads put out by my personal hero Allen West.  One of two black Republican Congressmen, he was redistricted into a much less Republican district and was thought to be easy pickings for his Democrat opponent.  Instead, West is clobbering Patrick Murphy, and is now leading by eleven points.  How did he do it?  Because he knows what he believes in and he fights for his beliefs.  Conviction and honest emotion go a long way in politics, along with a verbal hard right to the kidneys every now and then:

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

Libyan Lie

From day one the Obama administration knew that the Libyan attack on our Benghazi consulate and the murder of our ambassador was an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the Mohammed video.

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News — though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a “spontaneous” event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

 

In spite of that, President Obama and members of his administration for days afterwards pretended that the attack was in reaction to the video.  Go here to read a first-rate time line put together by the Washington Post blog.  Why the lie?  Several reasons.

1.  Osama dead and General Motors alive- One of the few foreign policies successes of the Obama administration was the killing of bin Laden.  A successful  al-Qaeda attack on the anniversary of 9-11 undercut this in a huge way.

2.  Now we have to do something?- In the midst of the Presidential campaign the last thing Obama wanted was to admit that this was a terrorist attack.  Such an admission would require that he take action.  In fact Obama has done precious little in the aftermath attack.  More than two weeks after the attack, the FBI still has not examined the attack site at Benghazi.

3.  Appeasement -The Mohammed video bogeyman allowed Obama to do what his preferred policy is to the jihadists:  pretend that if we bend over backwards not to offend Muslims, everything will be sweetness and love between Islam and the West. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki: Democrat Party and Intrinsic Evil

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Springfield, Illinois diocese minces no words as to what is at stake in this election:

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the “ayes” and the “nays” sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, “The ayes have it!”

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are “pro-choice” Republicans who support abortion rights and “Log Cabin Republicans” who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, 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.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen. ']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

1 3 4 5 6 7 17
Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .