TAGG TRUTHERISM: NBC, SALON LAY TRACK FOR OHIO VOTE CONSPIRACY THEORY

Yesterday, at the Big Journalism ObamaMedia live blog, I made note of a tweet fired off by MSNBC's Luke Russert, where he linked to a wild-eyed MSNBC story "raising questions" about Tagg Romney's connection to a Ohio voting machine company:

A financial interest held by Mitt Romney’s son in a voting machine company whose systems are being used in Ohio threatens public confidence in the election’s integrity, according to Jennifer Brunner, the state’s former top elections official.

“It doesn’t look good for a presidential candidate’s son to be an investor in a voting machine company,” Brunner told MSNBC.com. “That has to do with public trust in the process.”

Today, NBC News itself jumped into the fever swamp:

Now, the integrity of electronic voting machines is back in the spotlight. Reports are circulating there are “dubious links” between the voting machines in some counties[Hamilton and William] in Ohio and Governor Romney.

The machines are supplied by Hart Intercivic, a national e-voting company. The Austin-based firm is partially owned by H.I.G Capital, an investment company that has business ties to Solamere Capital, Tagg Romney’s [Mitt’s oldest son] equity firm.

The suggestion is that the Romney link is at best a conflict of interest, with even the potential for bias, fraud or irregularity.

Naturally, NBC's political soul-mate, Salon, piled on to lay even more track with this nonsense:

Voting machine provider Hart Intercivic will be counting the votes in various counties in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Colorado and elsewhere throughout the country come Nov. 6 — even though it has extensive corporate ties to the Mitt Romney camp, and even though a study commissioned by the state of Ohio has labeled its voting system a “failure” when it comes to protecting the integrity of elections.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Michelle Obama Invokes Civil War, Segregation in Reelection Push

Sometimes, it might seem like the battles for our rights and liberties are some distant memory – even something you’ve only read about in a textbook or seen in a documentary.

SEE ALSO: Michelle Obama Defends Husband, Says Black Women Have Her Hubby’s Back [Exclusive]

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed a century and a half ago. The marches and boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins of the civil rights era are 50 or 60 years behind us.

And today, there are no longer any separate water fountains, no more guards keeping any of our children from the schoolhouse door.  That’s a sign of how far we’ve come – we live in a world with progress that our parents and grandparents would never have even dreamed of.

But that doesn’t mean that our work is finished.

And while today’s challenges may not feel as glaring, they’re every bit as urgent. Do children who go to an understaffed, crumbling school truly have a fair shot at success?  If a family has a son or daughter born with a genetic disease, should they have to fight day and night with insurance companies just to get the insurance coverage they need?  Are our children falling behind because our communities aren’t safe or supportive enough for them to reach their potential?  And how do we preserve our most fundamental right to cast our ballots for our children and grandchildren?

All of those questions have one common answer – and it’s an answer that harkens back to the generations before us. It’s about all of us standing up, getting engaged, and making our voices heard. It’s about getting engaged in our communities. It’s about using the power of our vote to elect leaders who will fight so that those students get the schools they deserve, and those families keep their insurance, and those communities will have voices speaking out on their behalf.

Via: News One

Continue Reading...

Bob Woodward on Obama's Sequestration Comments: 'What The President Said Is Not Correct'

Bob Woodward says President Barack Obama got some of his facts wrong on sequester at Monday night’s debate.

Woodward’s book, “The Price of Politics,” has been the go-to fact check source for the president’s answer, in which he claimed the idea of using deep, automatic, across-the-board domestic and defense spending cuts to force Congress to address the nation’s burgeoning federal deficit originated from Congress, not from the White House.

(Also on POLITICO: D.C. caught off guard by Obama sequester vow)

“What the president said is not correct,” Woodward told POLITICO Tuesday. “He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him.”

Woodward, a Washington Post journalist who was a key reporter on the initial coverage of the Watergate scandal, said he stands behind his reporting in the book, which drew upon sources involved in last year’s deficit talks and detailed notes taken in the meetings.

(Also on POLITICO: Woodward's book: 5 telling moments)

Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans.

During the debate, however, Obama said the idea originated on Capitol Hill.

“First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed,” Obama said, adding his strongest pronouncement to date on its future: “It will not happen.”

Woodward said there’s a possibility the president was unaware of how the idea came about.

“It’s a complicated process — and in fairness to the president — maybe he didn’t know that they were doing this because it’s kind of technical budget jargon,” Woodward said.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading...

Opinion: All Mitt Needed To Do Was Sound Reasonable, He Succeeded

A Perfectly Plausible President

Mitt Romney needed to pass the usual tests for Republican presidential candidates in his debate Monday night with President Obama.

There was the Ford test (alternatively known as the Palin/Cain/Perry test): Would Mr. Romney say something so obviously misinformed, so manifestly silly, so revealingly ignorant as to disqualify him from serious consideration as a prospective commander-in-chief? He said nothing of the sort.

There was the Goldwater test (unfairly named, but reputations are stubborn things): Did Mr. Romney make pronouncements so belligerent as to make ordinary people fear for their children's safety—or at least provide David Axelrod a chance to make it seem as if he did? He did not, though that won't stop Mr. Axelrod from trying.

And there was the Bush test (not unfairly named but mistakenly understood to mean ideology when it ought to be about consistency): Would Mr. Romney find a deft way to define his foreign policy as something other than a retread of the 43rd president—but also as something defensible, distinctive, and (not least) identifiably Republican?

On this score, Mr. Romney succeeded, too, if only in a manner coyly calculated to raise the hackles of every conservative who has harbored doubts all along about the Massachusetts governor.

Enlarge Image

Mitt Romney

"We can't kill our way out of this mess," he declared early in the debate, a point that, had it been made by Mr. Obama, would have been treated as evidence of Democratic pusillanimity. He offered a vision for Mideast social and economic progress so wholly unobjectionable it would have made any Peace Corps volunteer proud. On Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, drone strikes and China he offered policy prescriptions that—as Mr. Obama didn't fail to notice—were all-but identical in substance to the administration's.

He even got in a personal dig on President Bush toward the end, in connection to the auto bailout.

Via: WSJ

Continue Reading...

D.C. Considering Restricting Sizes Of Sodas

AP

Some on D.C. Council favor restricting sugary drinks

Mark Segraves

WASHINGTON - Several members of the D.C. Council have come out in favor of restricting the sizes of sugary sodas sold in the District - a ban similar to one in New York City.

At a recent debate between candidates for the at-large council seats, current Councilmembers Michael Brown and Vincent Orange said without hesitation they would vote to ban the sale of large drinks.

That news was music to Councilmember Mary Cheh's ears.

"I'm very excited by that," said Cheh (D-Ward 3), who fell one vote short of passing a tax on sodas and other sugary drinks.

Cheh authored the Healthy Schools Act and says she thinks the New York City ban is a good idea she'd like to bring to the nation's capital.

"If I could get the votes to do it I would certainly try to put that in place," Cheh tells WTOP.

"I would consider legislation to do that, I would like to see that done," she added.

While Cheh, Orange and Brown are the only three elected officials to come out in support of the ban, several others say they are open to a ban, including Mayor Vincent Gray.

"I think there probably are some good health reasons to support something like that," Gray said. "We'll be happy to look at it, we haven't taken a position on that one way or another."

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson agreed it's an idea worthy of consideration.

"The issue of nutrition is of critical importance to public health. We need to look at different strategies so people understand what the effect is of the large volume of soft drinks they're drinking," Mendelson said.

Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) also was open to considering a ban.

"I am open to anything that will help young people be healthier," Wells said.

Via: WTOP

Continue Reading...

TRR: Romney Has Best Gallup Tracking Poll Numbers Since 1968

Mitt Romney continues to out-poll every winning presidential challenger since 1968.

The latest Gallup daily tracking poll of likely voters has Mr. Romney leading Barack Obama by seven points, 52% to 45%. Mr. Romney’s total is greater than Richard Nixon’s 44% at this point in the race in 1968, Jimmy Carter’s 49% in 1976, Ronald Reagan’s hard to believe 39% in 1980 (Carter was ahead with 45%), George H. W. Bush’s 50% in 1988, and Bill Clinton’s 40% in 1992. In 2000 and 2008 George W. Bush and Barack Obama both tracked at a within-error 51%.

The Gallup numbers have come under criticism from Obama supporters for their supposed inaccuracy, but the oldest established polling organization has done well in predicting the last three elections. In 2000, the final Gallup likely voter poll showed a neck and neck race, 47/45, which turned out to be a 50/50 outcome. In 2004 Gallup had the Bush/Kerry race at 49/47 and the result was 50/48. And in 2008 Gallup's final likely voter poll had Mr. Obama at 53% which was right on the money. Whether Mr. Romney's tracking numbers will hold over the next few weeks remains to be seen but right now he is on a better trajectory than any presidential challenger in the last 40+ years.
Maybe the Justice Department will want to investigate.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading...

Debates deliver favorability edge to Romney; now above 50% in rating

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Mitt Romney crossed a major threshold early this week, moving above 50 percent in his favorability rating with voters, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls — and for the first time in the campaign he now leads President Obama on that measure.

The Republican presidential nominee has clearly benefited from the debates. He had a 44.5 percent favorability rating at the end of September, before the debates. But by Monday, when he and Mr. Obama faced off for the final debate of the campaign, Mr. Romney’s favorability average was up to 50.5 percent.

Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said Mr. Romney’s favorability surge “really has been remarkable.”

“It was inevitable that Republicans were going to warm up to him once he became their nominee, but ever since his big victory in the first debate, his numbers with independents have improved a good deal as well,” he said. “We’re actually finding in our national tracking now that Romney’s favorability numbers are better than Obama‘s, which no one could have imagined six months ago.”

Mike McKenna, a Republican pollster, said Mr. Romney used the three 90-minute debates this month, with the largest national audiences he’s ever had, to humanize himself for voters who’d only seen snapshots in campaign commercials. news accounts and negative ads from the Obama campaign.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading...

Winners and losers from the final presidential debate

And just like that, the 2012 presidential election debates are over.

President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney traded blows on foreign policy for 90 minutes in Boca Raton tonight. So, who won and who lost? We try to answer both of those questions below.

Agree or disagree with our picks? Tell us why in the comments section.

WINNERS

* President Obama: Obama controlled the third presidential debate in a way not all that dissimilar from the way Romney controlled the first one. Obama clearly came loaded for bear, attacking Romney from the jump for a lack of clarity when it came to his vision (or lack thereof) on foreign policy. If you are looking for moments — and remember that the media coverage over the next few days will focus on just that — Obama had two with his line about “the 1980s calling” in regards to Romney’s foreign policy and his reference to “horses and bayonets” to call into question his rival’s understanding of the modern military.   It’s possible that Obama came off too hot/not presidential in some of his attacks but Democrats will take a little too much heat following Obama’s cold-as-ice performance in the first debate. Obama came across as the more confident and commanding presence — by a lot. 

* Bob Schieffer: Yes, there was a section in the middle of the debate where the two candidates got into an extended conversation about class size and things looked like they might go completely off the tracks. But, to Schieffer’s credit he did a solid job of balancing the need to keep some sort of structure in the debate while at the same time letting the two men litigate out their difference. Also, huge credit to Schieffer for injecting a bit of humor into the proceedings; his rebuke of Romney for demanding more time brought a smile to the faces of both candidates and his wry “I think we all love teachers” line felt pitch perfect. 

* Zingers: Remember in the runup to the first debate how Obama insisted that Romney would focus on “zingers” and he would talk about substance? By the third debate, Obama seemed to have decided that a few zingers thrown in here and there couldn’t hurt.  His line that “the 1980s are calling to have their foreign policy back” is likely to be the most memorable one of the night (and maybe of the entire presidential debate season).  

* Mali: Two mentions in the first 10 minutes of the debate ain’t too shabby. Now, quick, what is the capital of Mali? Bamako!

* “Tumult”: By our count, Romney used the word five times to describe a situation happening in the world. Somewhere ”uproar”, “turmoil” and “hubbub” are grimacing.

LOSERS

* Mitt Romney: Romney clearly decided to play it safe in this debate — whether because he thought he was ahead and will win if he doesn’t screw up or because he knows that foreign policy isn’t his strong suit.  But, as NFL teams (re)learn every year, playing the prevent defense almost never works. Romney was constantly trying to parry Obama attacks; he knocked some down but plenty got through too.  Romney also struggled to differentiate how his foreign policy would offer a break with what Obama has pursued over the past four years. And, he seemed uninterested in attacking Obama on Libya, a baffling strategic decision. Romney was, not surprisingly, at his best when talking about how the economic uncertainty in this country led to uncertainty for the country more broadly but he just didn’t do enough of it to win.

* Foreign policy: It was probably inevitable that a real discussion of America’s role in the world wasn’t going to happen amid polling that suggests that voters overwhelmingly care about the economy in this country. After about 15 minutes of trying to stay on the announced topic, both Obama and Romney started to talk at least as much about domestic policy as foreign policy. The two candidates’ closing statements were illustrative of this fact; neither man made more than a passing mention of foreign policy. It’s hard to imagine that any voter seeking a more detailed explanation of the two candidates’ views on a broad swath of foreign policy matters got it tonight.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading...

Transcript And Audio: Third Presidential Debate

EnlargeWin McNamee/Getty Images

Mitt Romney and President Obama debate Monday in Boca Raton, Fla., with moderator Bob Schieffer.

text size A A A

October 22, 2012

Transcript of the third debate between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla., moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS. Source: Federal News Service

Editor's Note: NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good evening from the campus of Lynn University here in Boca Raton, Florida. This is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign, brought to you by the Commission on Presidential Debates. This one's on foreign policy. I'm Bob Schieffer of CBS News. The questions are mine, and I have not shared them with the candidates or their aides.

The audience has taken a vow of silence — no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. (Sustained cheers, applause.)

Gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. They have asked me to divide the evening into segments. I'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. You will each have two minutes to respond, and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment.

Tonight's debate, as both of your know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that President Kennedy told the world that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba — perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. So let's begin.

Via: NPR

Continue Reading...

Charles Krauthammer on the Third Presidential Debate: “It’s Unequivocal Mitt Romney Won”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer reacted to the third presidential debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. He said, “I think it’s unequivocal Mitt Romney won.”

Krauthammer told Megyn Kelly on Fox News that Romney won both tactically and strategically. He assessed that Romney had to show the American people that he was someone they can trust as commander in chief.

During the debate, he said, “Romney went large. Obama went very, very small – shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not to go after president on Libya or Syria or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger.”

---

Off-Topic: Bob Schieffer Tries to Veer Foreign Policy Conversation Back From … Everything But

DEBATE QUOTE: “Horses and Bayonets” at the Debate

Mitt Romney to Obama: Attacking Me Is Not an Agenda

Mitt Romney: We Can’t Kill Our Way Out of This Mess

Follow Fox News Insider, the official blog of Fox News Channel on Twitter and Google+!

---

The highest point for Romney, Krauthammer identified as the point when he “devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour.”

Via: Fox News Insider

Continue Reading...

Awesome: Alabama House Leader Moves To Block UN Poll Watchers From Operating In His State…

Montgomery – In response to news that poll watchers affiliated with the United Nations will be sent across the country to monitor balloting in various states and search for evidence of “voter suppression” during the upcoming November 6 presidential election, Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard said he will support legislation in the next session requiring all poll watchers in Alabama to hold U.S. citizenship.

“The United States is the worldwide beacon of free elections and the Republican form of government, so having an international squad from the United Nations playing referee in our elections is insulting and absurd,” Hubbard said. “We’ve been holding elections in the U.S. for the past 223 years without the United Nations playing a role or enforcing the rules, and we certainly don’t want or need them now.”

At the request of several liberal-leaning groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a United Nations affiliate, announced it will deploy a team of poll watchers to polling sites across the country in order to monitor and document potential disputes.

The poll watchers will come from Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Germany and France, and other countries.

Hubbard said he will push the law in order to ensure U.N. observers are blocked from future elections in Alabama by allowing only those who are U.S. citizens to be certified as poll watchers in the state.

“If you can’t participate in an election in the United States, and if you can’t cast a vote in the United States, you really have no business serving as a poll watcher in an election being held in the United States,” Hubbard said. “It’s bad enough that Alabama remains trapped under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, so we certainly don’t need anyone from the United Nations coming into our state and meddling in our elections, as well.”

Via: Yellow Hammer

Continue Reading...

Obama, Romney hit each other on foreign policy in last debate before election

President Obama and Mitt Romney painted a bleak portrait of each other’s leadership on the world stage Monday night, using their final debate before a feverish two-week blitz of campaigning to tout their commander-in-chief credentials.

To hear Romney tell it, the president has presided over a steady decline in American influence that has emboldened enemies like Iran. To hear Obama, the Republican nominee would confuse the rest of the world with a foreign policy that is “all over the map.”

The two met for a debate focused on foreign policy, though it often veered to domestic issues like the economy and taxes. In contrast to the last debate where Obama and Romney paced and circled each other throughout, the rivals were seated next to one another onstage in Boca Raton, Fla. It made for a less confrontational setting, but the tone was no less tense.

Obama accused Romney of pushing a foreign policy that’s either flat-out “wrong” or some version of what the president himself has already done, only “louder.” Romney accused the president of projecting “weakness” on the world stage, whether through his so-called “apology tour” overseas or his policy on Iran.

Romney ripped President Obama’s foreign policy at the start of Monday night’s debate, claiming the president’s strategy has not quelled the Al Qaeda threat. 

“It’s certainly not on the run. It’s certainly not hiding,” Romney said. “This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries.”

Romney commended Obama for ordering the raid that killed Usama bin Laden and other strikes on Al Qaeda leaders, but he said “we can’t kill our way out of this mess.” He said Al Qaeda remains an “enormous threat,” despite Obama’s claims that the terror group is on the path to defeat.

Obama, though, countered that “Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.” And he sought to portray Romney as someone who would be an unsteady leader on the world stage. He accused Romney of having a strategy that is “all over the map.”

Obama was tough on Romney from the outset, accusing him of having poor judgment and antiquated views on foreign affairs.

“I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaeda,” Obama said. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Obama went on to say that, on foreign policy, “every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong.”

Romney fired back, “attacking me is not an agenda.” He accused Obama of looking at countries like Russia through “rose-colored glasses.”

The 90-minute debate offered perhaps the last chance for either candidate to shake up the race in any significant way, with two weeks to go until Election Day. The face-off at Lynn University was moderated by Bob Schieffer.

The presidential debates this month have been among the most consequential in modern campaign history. Romney entered the debates as the slight underdog in most polls, but since his opening performance has surged to pull even with or ahead of the president.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

Draw Down, Back Down Obama to push come-home foreign policy in debate

President Barack Obama is pushing an isolationist return-to-home foreign policy in his latest TV attack-ad, entitled “Rebuilding.”

Obama will likely push that theme during Monday’s foreign-policy debate, partly because support for the anti-jihad campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen further — especially among late-deciding swing voters — since Obama took office in 2009.

“Obama ended the Iraq war. Mitt Romney would have kept 30,000 troops there, and called bringing them home ‘tragic,’” says the 32-second ad.

“Obama has brought 30,000 soldiers back from Afghanistan, and has a responsible plan to end the war. … It is time to stop fighting over there, and start rebuilding here,” the ad concludes.

The ad does not say if the president wants to win the Afghanistan campaign, which began after al-Qaida’s jihadis used Afghanistan to launch the Sept. 11 attack on New York.

Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 after Iraq leaders declined a proposed long-term strategic deal. The draft deal, however, collapsed after Obama said the proposed U.S. back-force in Iraq had to be fewer than 4,000 troops.

The withdrawal came after U.S. forces had won a hard-fought to campaign to cripple the various groups that were attacking the elected Iraqi government.

Since then, Iraq’s government has come under increasing pressure from the radical leadership in neighboring Iran.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

CA: FLIERS OFFERING VOTERS FREE MARIJUANA LEADS TO HIGH TURNOUT

Fliers offering voters $40 worth of marijuana led to increased turnout in an October 13 Neighborhood Council election in Eagle Rock, California. 

Voters in Eagle Rock reported they saw fliers with names of candidates running on the "Progess and Collaboration" slate that offered them free marijuana if they voted in the Neighborhood Council elections. 

According to CBS Los Angeles, "nearly 10 times as many voters – 792 residents – turned out to the polls during the recent Neighborhood Council elections than last year" and residents were able to collect enough signatures to put the issue of whether pot dispensaries should be banned in the city on the ballot. 

“You can’t pay your way like that, that’s not cool,” resident Danielle Sargent told CBS Los Angeles.

Yet, the fliers did not lead to victory for the Progress and Collaboration slate -- only two of the eight "Progress" candidates won.  Residents accused a local marijuana dispensary of distributing the fliers. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

U.S. Government's Foreign Debt Now $47,495 Per Household

(CNSNews.com) - The debt that the U.S. government owes to foreign interests now equals approximately $47,495 for each household in the United States, according to the latest data released by the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.

The portion of the U.S. government’s foreign debt now owed to interests in Mainland China is about $10,090 per household.

At the end of August, the latest period reported by the U.S. Treasury, foreign interests held a total of $5,430,000,000,000 in U.S. government debt. According to the Census Bureau’s latest estimate (which was for June 2012) there were 114,328,000 households in the United States. Therefore, the total U.S. government debt held by foreign interests was about $47,494.93 per household.

Back in January 2009, foreign interests held a total of $3,071,700,000,000 in U.S. government debt. That month, according to the Census Bureau, there were 111,079,000 households in the United States. Therefore the total U.S. government debt held by foreign interests was about $27,653.29 per household.

Since January 2009, the total U.S. government debt held by foreign interests has climbed from approximately $27,653.29 per household to approximately $47,494.93 per household—an increase of about $19,841.64 per household.

Among foreign interests, those in Mainland China hold the largest share of the U.S. government’s debt. The Mainland Chinese, according to the Treasury, owned $1,153,600,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities as of the end of August.

Back in January 2009, interests in Mainland China held only $739.6 billion in U.S. government debt. That month, the U.S. government owed about $6,658 per American household to interests in China. As of the end of August, the U.S. government owed about $10,090 per American household to interests in China—an increase since January 2009 of about $3,432 per household.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading...

JUST MORE WORDS: Still Not Clear On Second Term Agenda

Team Obama Spends Sunday Morning Being Asked Where And What Is Obama’s Vision For A Second Term?

OBAMA SURROGATES SPENT THEIR SUNDAY MORNING FACING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT OBAMA WILL DO IN A SECOND TERM

NBC’s David Gregory: “ Has The President Spent More Time Trying To Disqualify Romney As An Alternative Than Affirmatively Saying What A Second Term Would Actually Look Like?” NBC’s DAVID GREGORY: “Generally, the attack that has come on this president from his opposition, from Governor Romney and from Paul Ryan, and you heard it from Senator Rubio, a lack of a second term agenda. Is it fair, that criticism? Has the president spent more time trying to disqualify Romney as an alternative than affirmatively saying what a second term would actually look like?” (NBC‘s “Meet The Press,” 10/21/12)

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “Can You Counter It And Lay Out Exactly What President Obama Would Do In A Second Term?” GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “He seems to be getting some traction with that argument. Can you counter it and lay out exactly what President Obama would do in a second term?” (ABC’s “This Week,” 10/21/12)

• Stephanopoulos: “It Sounds Like What You’re Saying Is That What You Want Is More Of What We Had The Last Four Years.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 10/21/12)

OBAMA HAS HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO GIVE HIS SECOND TERM PLANS BUT VOTERS HAVE BEEN LEFT IN THE DARK

The Washington Post’s Dan Balz: Obama Has Been “Rightly Criticized For Not Being More Specific About His Second-Term Agenda.” “The president has rightly been criticized for not being more specific about his second-term agenda. What economic policies does he have that he hasn’t already tried? What is he truly prepared to do on the deficit?”(Dan Balz, “For Obama and Romney, Monday’s Debate Is Crucial,” The Washington Post, 10/20/12)

• “Having Gone This Far, It’s Not Likely He Will Start Filling In Those Blanks In The Final Two Weeks. He Prefers To Tell Voters Why They Should Fear Romney.” (Dan Balz, “For Obama and Romney, Monday’s Debate Is Crucial,” The Washington Post, 10/20/12)

• Obama Hasn’t Restored “A Sense Of Faith And Optimism About The Next Four Years.” “But what he also hasn’t done yet is restore a sense of faith and optimism about the next four years. That’s what Michael Jones was looking for last week, not merely a recitation of a litany of actions undertaken. It remains a missing piece in the president’s message.” (Dan Balz, “For Obama and Romney, Monday’s Debate Is Crucial,” The Washington Post, 10/20/12)

VIa: GOP.com

Continue Reading...

THE BIG FAIL: Voters Wonder Where Obama’s Vision Is For Country As Well As His Facts

ROMNEY HAS BETTER VISION FOR THE COUNTRY THAN OBAMA

CBS’s Charlie Kaye: “In the @CBSNews Instant Poll, 65% say Romney won on the issue of the economy. 34% say Obama won on the economy.” (Charlie Kaye, Twitter Feed, 10/16/12)

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Look at this. 58%, 58% of debate watchers say Romney would better handle the economy, 40% say President Obama would. That’s issue number one.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/17/12)

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “59% say Romney would do a better job on the deficit, 36% say President Obama would do a better job on the deficit.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/17/12)

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We also asked who would better handle the issue of taxes. 51% say Romney. 44% say president Obama.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/17/12)

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “49% say Romney would better handle health care, compared to 46% for president Obama. 49-46.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/17/12)

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We also asked who seemed to be a stronger leader. 49% said Governor Romney, compared to 46% for President Obama.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/16/12)

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We also asked who spent more time attacking his opponent. 49% said President Obama. 35% said Governor Romney.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/16/12)

• CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “45% say Romney answered the questions more directly, compared to 43% for President Obama.” (CNN’s “Debate Night In America,” 10/16/12)

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Salena Zito: “I’m sorry but all day every reporter was talking about the Obama Team saying Obama would talk about his vision. Yet not once, not once did he.” (Salena Zito, Twitter Feed, 10/17/12)

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: “You know I still don’t know what President Obama’s economic growth vision is, I don’t think he outlined it. You know I think Obama was a pretty good counterpuncher tonight. He had a lot more energy going, there’s no question about that. Both these guys had a lot of energy going but at the end of the day, I still don’t know what the president is intending if he’s reelected. I don’t think he made the case. I don’t think he provided a vision. I think he was mostly a counterpuncher and Mitt Romney wouldn’t let him have the counterpunch without the counter-counterpunch. So in that sense it’s a push but I still don’t see what the Obama case is for reelection. I just don’t see it; I didn’t hear it from him.” (CNBC, 10/16/12)\

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading...

THE BIG FAIL: Former Obama Econ Adviser Steven Rattner Says Obama Is “At The Bottom Of The Pack” Of Recent Presidents When It Comes To Economic Growth

Obama Auto Bailout Czar Steven Rattner Said That Obama Is At The “Bottom Of The Pack…When It Comes To Plain Economic Growth.” MSNBC’s MIKA BRZEZINSKI: “Yeah. We looked at post-debate polls that suggested people seemed to favor the president’s performance in the debate, but they gave Mitt Romney higher marks for his ability to handle the economy. So Steve Rattner is here with charts this morning to explain why that may have come out that way. Charts on the economy. Steve, take it away.” OBAMA CAR CZAR STEVEN RATTNER: “Sure. Well, as we all know, the president is facing – has been facing – a pretty stiff economic headwind. And what I want to do is lay out how his economic situation compares across a bunch of different indicators to those of other people who have run for president recently. And you’ll see interesting results in terms of how the economy’s performed. So one measure people often look at is real GDP which is obviously how much has the economy grown. So for each of these presidents we start with the beginning of their first term, and then we progress ourselves out to their re-election point. And what you can see not surprisingly, because we talk a lot about the weak economy, is that by this measure, Obama is really pretty much at the bottom of the pack. And the other four presidents that have preceded him all had substantially better performance when it comes to plain economic growth. Now, economic growth alone is not a recipe for re-election, as you can see, because Bush 41 did not get re-elected, and Jimmy Carter, of course, did not get re-elected.” (MSNBC’s ” Morning Joe,” 10/18/12)

Rattner Acknowledged The Last Time The Country Experienced Such Slow Economic Growth Was During The Great Depression. MSNBC’s WILLIE GEIST: “Steve what about the argument that you would hear looking at that chart from the Obama White House that that trough you see on the chart right there took a lot of digging to get out of, and that’s why they’re at 3.1%.” RATTNER: “That’s precisely the argument, but remember, we are still growing pretty slowly, 1.3%, 1.5%, it’s not the kind of growth rates we’ve had in the past. So it is a slow-growth economy. And I think when people are asked how does the president handle the economy, it obviously factors into their view. But if you look at a couple other measures -” TIME’s MARK HALPERIN: “Can I ask you a quick question? When did we last have a period of, a four-year period of GDP growth this low?” RATTNER: “I think you’d have to go back to -” MSNBC’s JOE SCARBOROUGH: “You’d have to go back to the ’30s?” RATTNER: “I think you’d have to go back to the ’30s. Four years like this, yeah. I think so.” SCARBOROUGH: “The early ’30s, maybe?” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 10/18/12)

 Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading...