Texas AG Tells International Election Monitors to Butt Out

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has warned the OSCE that its observers risk criminal prosecution if they approach polling stations in the state. (AP Photo/File)

(CNSNews.com) – The head of an international body that will monitor the U.S. elections next month protested to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday after Texas’ attorney-general warned that any international observer who approaches a polling station in the state risks criminal prosecution.

“The threat of criminal sanctions … is unacceptable,” said Janez Lenarcic, the Slovenian diplomat who heads the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), a part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

“The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections,” he said in a statement. It added that he “shared his concerns in a letter” to Clinton.

Lenarcic was responding to a letter sent by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to the ODIHR Tuesday informing it that “groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”

“The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place,” Abbott wrote. ‘It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.”

Lenarcic’s letter to Clinton is the latest development in a simmering controversy over an OSCE/ODIHR mission that aims to assess the November 6 vote “for compliance with international obligations and standards for democratic elections.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading...

Barack Obama is a Liar

Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation. This is why, aside from the unwritten contract allowing for mutual prevarication, politicians are so reluctant to do it. And not just anyone is a liar. Legend has it that our first president said, "I cannot tell a lie," but, being only human, G.W. no doubt could and certainly did, at some point. A liar, however, is someone who lives and breathes the lie; someone who specializes in the art of artifice; someone to whom lying is his first recourse, not his last. Such a man is Barack Obama.

In four years, Obama has gone from "change you can believe in" to a man you simply cannot believe. And it's not just Benghazi-gate, although that's a good place to start. With the recently revealed emails showing that the White House was told a mere two hours after the attack that it was a terrorist act, no reasonable person can still conclude that the Obama administration was honest in its aftermath. And the claim that the violence was sparked by some anti-Islamic film wasn't just a lie - it was a liar's lie.

It was dumb.

It was obvious that it would eventually blow up in the administration's face and make Benghazi into the scandal it has now become. But such things are only obvious to the intellect; at issue here are instincts.

Of course, since the Obama administration had failed to provide requested security for our Libyan diplomats despite previous attacks on their consulate and the approach of 9/11's anniversary, the president had a vested political interest in suppressing the truth. This made the Benghazi-gate lie one of callousness and convenience, not malice. But then there is the matter of Hampton University in Virginia.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

OBAMA BLUE STATE DISASTER

Michigan Poll: Obama and Romney in dead heat

MYFOXDetroit.com - Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.

An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.

Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.

The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?

President Barack Obama       46.92%
GOP Nominee Mitt Romney   46.56%
Another candidate                     2.30%
Undecided                                  4.23%

President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney participated in three presidential debates on October. Did their debate performances affect your vote for President?

It confirmed my candidate choice     50.86%
It made me change my candidate    12.24%
It had no affect on my candidate        30.68%
I didn't watch the debate                        6.22%

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

The Least Shocking Endorsement Of All-Tima: WaPo Backs Obama…

(CNN) – The Washington Post announced in an editorial Thursday their endorsement of President Barack Obama.

The Post, which also endorsed then-Illinois Sen. Obama in 2008, said that while much of the campaign for the White House has “dwelt on the past,” Obama is in a better position to lead in the challenges that lie ahead.

The Washington-based newspaper, whose editorial page leans left, said their endorsement comes recognizing disappointments in Obama’s first term but said the president “is committed to the only approach that can succeed: a balance of entitlement reform and revenue increases.”

The editorial contrasts this with what it said is Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s future – “one in which an ever-greater share of the nation’s wealth resides with the nation’s wealthy, at a time when inequality already is growing.”

The Post notes dissatisfaction that Obama failed to reach a fiscal deal with Congress in 2011, the president’s isolation “inside a tight White House circle” as well as his attitude toward business as an “obstacle rather than a partner.”

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading...

Another Reason Why America Is Amazing ...

U.S. May Overtake Saudi Arabia As World’s Top Oil Producer
NEW YORK (AP) - U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer.

Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

The boom has surprised even the experts.

"Five years ago, if I or anyone had predicted today's production growth, people would have thought we were crazy," says Jim Burkhard, head of oil markets research at IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm.

The Energy Department forecasts that U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons, which includes biofuels, will average 11.4 million barrels per day next year. That would be a record for the U.S. and just below Saudi Arabia's output of 11.6 million barrels. Citibank forecasts U.S. production could reach 13 million to 15 million barrels per day by 2020, helping to make North America "the new Middle East."

The last year the U.S. was the world's largest producer was 2002, after the Saudis drastically cut production because of low oil prices in the aftermath of 9/11. Since then, the Saudis and the Russians have been the world leaders.

The United States will still need to import lots of oil in the years ahead. Americans use 18.7 million barrels per day. But thanks to the growth in domestic production and the improving fuel efficiency of the nation's cars and trucks, imports could fall by half by the end of the decade.

The increase in production hasn't translated to cheaper gasoline at the pump, and prices are expected to stay relatively high for the next few years because of growing demand for oil in developing nations and political instability in the Middle East and North Africa.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading...

Romney by a landslide

A deeply troubled and deeply troubling administration that will do anything, no matter how cynical and venal, to protect its hold on power

When it comes to predicting the outcome of presidential races most pundits refuse to go out on a limb in predicting probable outcomes. Let’s face it; it’s a risky business that could leave one’s face covered with egg. However, in the case of the current election I will happily stick my neck out and risk being seen as a blowhard who believes himself up to predicting the future.

n a word, I predict a Romney landslide and here’s why: despite the fact that the famous 47% who to whatever degree depend on the government for their daily bread is expected to look for more of the same, I believe that if this percentage could have their druthers, they’d opt for having a well-paying job that left them self-sufficient, rather than dependent on the government.

I think that at some level most people in America understand that socialization would result in an overall lower standard of living. I also believe that despite all the class envy and hatred that’s been ginned up against the 1% by this administration, there is a basic understanding that private business, not the government, creates wealth. In my experience, most Americans understand that socialism doesn’t so much “spread the wealth” as it imposes equal degrees of misery.

Obama has incurred close to $6 trillion in new debt through deficit spending, the majority of which has gone to “stimulate” the economy. Counting the massive $821 billion stimulus bill and several additional stimulus bills and three Quantitative Easing initiatives (that’s government speak for printing extra money), the net effect has been that the American economy remains in the doldrums with unemployment in real terms approaching 15%. But even that failure might be forgiven if Obama hadn’t taken his role as messiah so seriously and make grandiloquent promises that could never be kept. I recall writing in these pages on November 11, 2008:

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading...

Pennsylvania Ripe for the Picking

Pennsylvania is approaching the Nov. 6 presidential election with 3 percent fewer registered voters than in fall 2008, an unusual slip that political analysts blame on a drop in voter enthusiasm across the country.

Democrats especially experienced a slump, bleeding 229,396 registered voters in Pennsylvania since the last presidential race, state data show. Republicans are down 112,796 registrants, but voters unconnected to either major party grew by 7 percent, or 73,043, according to Pennsylvania Department of State figures. As of Monday the state had 8,487,093 voters, down from 8,755,588 in November 2008, despite a 2 percent population gain. Democrats still hold a 50-37 percentage registration edge over Republicans, down one point from 2008.

The registration deadline for the election was Oct. 9.

“This year, we don’t have such a sense that this election is going to make history the way we did in 2008,” said Pat Dunham, chairwoman of the political science department at Duquesne University. “Enthusiasm in general may have dampened a little. Three-and-a-half years after electing Barack Obama, we see it’s not that easy to change things. ”

For Democrats in particular, “there’s not the same excitement” as four years ago, when the party tallied thousands of registrations, said political analyst Geoffrey Skelley of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

“There are probably no states that have had incredible increases in voter registration” this time, Skelley said.

Swing states that are losing that status may experience declines in voter registration when candidate visits and advertising shift to areas more in play, political scientists said.

Pennsylvania, which typically votes Democrat for presidents, joined Michigan, Indiana and Missouri to become less of a swing state, said Keystone College professor Jeff Brauer.

Via: Trib Live

Continue Reading...

THE BIG FAIL: Obama Focused On ObamaCare Instead Of Fixing The Ailing American Economy

Doubling Down

Posted October 24, 2012

Obama Focused On ObamaCare Instead Of Fixing The Ailing American Economy

In Des Moines Register Interview, Obama Has No Regrets That He Focused On ObamaCare Instead Of The Economy. DES MOINES REGISTER: “Yes, that begs a question from us, Mr. President. Some say you had a super majority in your first two years and had this incredible opportunity, but because of what you were talking about, as you were running, you had to go to get ObamaCare done. Do you have any regrets taking on some of the economic issues, some of the issues that we’re talking about for your second term, that when you had the chance, so to speak, during your first — do you have any regrets that you didn’t do that at that time?” OBAMA: “Absolutely not.” (President Barack Obama, Interview With The Des Moines Register, 10/23/12)

OBAMA IGNORED CALLS FROM TOP ADVISERS TO FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY INSTEAD OF OBAMACARE

In January 2009, “The Vice President Begged Obama To Make His Early Presidency About Jobs” Rather Than Health Care. “As a pure political proposition, Axelrod advised Obama to dedicate himself to the economy and maybe education, that perennial political winner. Now Axelrod suddenly had reinforcements elsewhere in the new administration. At a meeting in January 2009, the vice president begged Obama to make his early presidency about jobs. The people who’d given him his mandate would understand that times had changed, Joe Biden said. ‘They’ll give you a pass on this one.’” (Noam Scheiber, The Escape Artists, 2012, p. 140)

• During A January 2009 White House Meeting, Biden “Railed That The Government Was In No Fiscal Shape To Pursue A Health Care Overhaul” That Year. “At one January meeting to discuss the budget, Mr. Biden railed that the government was in no fiscal shape to pursue a health care overhaul this year – to the dismay of many present and others who heard about it.” (Mark Leibovich, “Speaking Freely, Biden Finds Influential Role,” The New York Times, 3/28/09)

Throughout 2009, Then-Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod Advised Obama To Focus On The Economy While Then-Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel “Begged” Obama Not To Pursue Health Care Reform. “At various points, Vice President Joe Biden, senior advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised the president to focus entirely on the economy and leave comprehensive health care for another day. ‘I begged him not to do this,’ Emanuel told me when I was researching my book about Obama’s first year in office.” (Jonathan Alter, Op-Ed, “Barney Frank Makes A Misdiagnosis On ObamaCare,” Bloomberg, 4/19/12)

• Obama Insisted That ObamaCare Be A Year One Priority, “Even Waiting A Year Or Two Was Out Of The Question.” “Still, the man with the most important vote was unmoved. Obama told his aides that if he couldn’t reform health care, another generation would pass before a president tried again. Even waiting a year or two was out of the question. ‘The president’s view was, yes we had to deal with the economic emergency at hand,’ said a White House aide. ‘But if we didn’t move on health care in the first few years, we’d probably never be able to get it done.’” (Noam Scheiber, The Escape Artists, 2012, p. 141)

“[E]ven After Winning The Presidency, Obama Was Loath To Accept That The Economy Was Singularly Important” And Disregarded Calls From Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner For It To Be The Immediate Focus. “But even after winning the presidency, Obama was loath to accept that the economy was singularly important. During a conference call with several senior adies early in the transition, Geithner remarked to his new boss that ‘your signature accomplishment is going to be preventing a Great Depression.’ … Even so, Obama’s response was slightly jarring. ‘That’s not enough for me,’ said the president-elect.” (Noam Scheiber, The Escape Artists, 2012, p. 15-16)

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading...

THE BIG FAIL: Obama Fails On College Costs

In Des Moines Register Interview, Obama Claims He Made College More Affordable, But A Newly Released Report Shows College Costs Continue To Rise

Obama: “I said that we would make sure to make college more affordable — we have.”(“President Releases Transcript Of Register Interview,” Des Moines Register , 10/24/12)

UNDER OBAMA, COLLEGE COSTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE

In The Past Year, Average In-State Tuition For Four-Year Public Colleges Increased 4.8 Percent. “Average published tuition and fees for in-state students at public four-year colleges and universities increased from $8,256 in 2011-12 to $8,655 in 2012-13. The 4.8% increase in tuition and fees was accompanied by a $325 (3.7%) increase in room and board charges for students living on campus. At $9,205, room and board charges account for more than half of the total charges for these students.” (“Trends In College Pricing 2011,” College Board, 2012-13)

• “Room-And-Board Charges Grew By A Comparable Amount, Raising The Full Cost For Students Living On Campus To $17,860.” (“Latest College Cost Hikes Modest, But Still Bite, College Board Figures Show,” The Associated Press , 10/24/12)

In The Past Year, Average Tuition For Public Two-Year Colleges Rose 5.8 Percent.“Average published in-state tuition and fees at public two-year colleges increased by $172 (5.8%), from $2,959 in 2011-12 to $3,131 in 2012-13.” (“Trends In College Pricing 2011,”College Board, 2012-13)

Sandy Baum , Senior Policy Analyst At The College Board : “ The Burden On Students Is Rising.” “‘The burden on students is rising. The federal government cannot and will not continue their (subsidies) at the same rate,’ Baum said.” (Kathleen Kingsbury, “College Costs Stall As Borrowing Falls, Study Says,” Reuters, 10/24/12)

Due To A Decrease In Pell Grants, “The Average Family Is Now Paying $960 More Per Year For A Public College Education Than It Was Three Years Ago, A 49 Percent Increase In Net Costs.” “Overall, federal grants declined to $49 billion last year, after doubling from $26 billion in the fall of 2008 to $52 billion for the 2010-2011 school year, according to the College Board. Policy changes, falling enrollments and economic conditions are all factors behind this drop. A significant cause was the end in 2011 of a three-year experiment that allowed students to qualify for two Pell Grants per calendar year and attend school year-round. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said the decision to cut the program was made in order to sustain the Pell’s maximum grant at $5,500 amid budget deficits. As a result, the average family is now paying $960 more per year for a public college education than it was three years ago, a 49 percent increase in net costs, the College Board said.” (Kathleen Kingsbury, “College Costs Stall As Borrowing Falls, Study Says,” Reuters, 10/24/12)

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading...

BARACK IN TIME: “Man, This Is The Same Guy”

Obama Claims He Is The Same Guy He Was 10 Years Ago, But His Words Tell A Different Story

Obama: “You Could Take A Videotape Of Things I Said 10 Years Ago, 12 Years Ago And You Would Say, Man This Is The Same Guy.” OBAMA: “And you know what? You can — like this guy right here who I served with in the United States Senate, George Shadid. And you know, you could take a videotape of things I said 10 years ago, 12 years ago and you would say, man this is the same guy.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Davenport, IA, 10/24/12)

IN 2008, OBAMA CALLED ADDING $4 TRILLION TO THE DEBT “UNPATRIOTIC”

In 2008, Obama Said Adding $4 Trillion To The National Debt Was “Irresponsible” And “Unpatriotic.” OBAMA: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Fargo, ND, 7/3/08)\

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading...

CHART: Paul Ryan Lays Out a Vision for Reforming Welfare, Fighting Poverty

In his speech today at Cleveland State University, Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI) laid out a vision for reforming the nation’s approach to poverty.

“With few exceptions, government’s approach has been to spend lots of money on centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs,” Ryan stated. “The mindset behind this approach is that a nation should measure compassion by the size of the federal government and how much it spends.” This has “created and perpetuated a debilitating culture of dependency, wrecking families and communities.”

He’s right. Since the “War on Poverty” began five decades ago, the federal government hasspent nearly $20 trillion (adjusted for inflation) on what is now a welfare system consisting of over 80 programs. Total annual spending is now approaching $1 trillion. See our newly updated chart: (continues below chart)

The Foundry

Continue Reading...

FL GOP Senate Candidate Connie Mack: “United Nations Should Be Kicked Off Of American Soil”…

Florida GOP Senate candidate Connie Mack had harsh words for the United Nations while on the campaign trail on Tuesday.

Mack, who is running to unseat Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson, stressed his conviction that the U.N. should be defunded and "kicked off of American soil,"according to The Tampa Tribune.

Mack made the remarks while making an appearance alongside Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). It's also not the first time the Senate candidate has leveled strong criticism against the United Nations.

The Miami Herald relays background on Mack's posture toward the U.N., which he made no secret of in taking aim at the organization earlier this week.

The incident that sparked his outrage was an announcement by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that it will send 44 observer to polling places around the country on Election Day to monitor potential disputes at polling places. The organization is registered as an NGO with United Nations but the U.N. is not involved in monitoring elections in the U.S.

The request for voting day monitoring came from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups. They warned in a letter to the OSCE of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

Addressing the issue in a statement released earlier this week, Mack said, "The UN’s actions and intentions toward the United States have been nothing short of reprehensible."

As for the state of the Florida Senate race, the latest polls show Mack running behind Nelson in the contest. Check out the numbers from HuffPost Pollster.

Via: Huffington Post

Continue Reading...

NY Times Blames Bill Clinton For Obama’s Drop In The Polls…

When the histories of the 2012 campaign are written, much will be made of Bill Clinton’s re-emergence. His convention speech may well have marked the finest moment of President Obama’s re-election campaign, and his ads on the president’s behalf were memorable.

POLITICAL TIMES

Matt Bai’s analysis and commentary.

But there is one crucial way in which the 42nd president may not have served the 44th quite as well. In these final weeks before the election, Mr. Clinton’s expert advice about how to beat Mitt Romney is starting to look suspect.

You may recall that last spring, just after Mr. Romney locked up the Republican nomination, Mr. Obama’s team abruptly switched its strategy for how to define him. Up to then, the White House had been portraying Mr. Romney much as George W. Bush had gone after John Kerry in 2004 – as inauthentic and inconstant, a soulless climber who would say anything to get the job.

But it was Mr. Clinton who forcefully argued to Mr. Obama’s aides that the campaign had it wrong. The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.

Via: NYT

Continue Reading...

Obama’s Ohio Firewall Collapsing

Rasmussen Reports, the first polling outfit to release a survey from Ohio taken after the third and final presidential debate, shows that Mitt Romney has now pulled even with President Obama among the state’s likely voters — at 48 percent support apiece.  This is the first time since the summer that Rasmussen doesn’t show Obama ahead in Ohio.  In four previous polls released this fall, Rasmussen had always shown Obama ahead in the Buckeye State — by one point each time. 

Today’s release is the first Ohio poll in which Rasmussen shows each of the two candidates’ net favorability ratings, which can sometimes seem to provide an early indication of future polling movement.  The poll shows Romney with a net favorability rating of +5 points (51 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable) and Obama with a net favorability rating of zero points (49 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable).  Among those who view either candidate “very” favorably or unfavorably (which is most people in this rather polarized election), Romney’s tally is +3 points (38 percent “very” favorable, 35 percent “very” unfavorable), while Obama’s is minus-3 points (37 percent “very” favorable, 40 percent “very” unfavorable). 

Romney, however, will have to overcome Obama’s edge among early voters.  Rasmussen writes, “The Obama campaign has a very strong ground game in the Buckeye State. Ohio allows early voting, and among those who have already voted, the president has a 10-point lead. But that’s a smaller advantage than he had a week ago.”

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Tingles Accuses Sarah Palin Of “Dog Whistle” Racism For Saying “Shuck And Jive”…

Liberal cable anchor Chris Matthews, who in 2010 used the phrase "shuck and jive," on Wednesday assailed Sarah Palin as racist for using the phrase "shuck and jive." Referring to a Facebook post the former Alaska governor wrote about Obama and Libya, Matthews ranted, "You know, a dog whistle is a dog whistle...A trumpet call is another."

The MSNBC host insisted that "shuck and jive" has "a particular ethnic connection" and "to throw it at the president as an ethnic shot is pretty blatant." On July 7, 2010, Matthews, while talking to Rachel Maddow and her visit to Afghanistan, wondered, "What has it been like, as you shuck and jive, hang out with the men over there, the women over there, in uniform risking their lives every day?" The late Tim Russert also used the term on July 18, 2003.

In 2008, then-Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said of Barack Obama: "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference." Steve McMahon, a Hardball regular, talked to then-MSNBC host Tucker Carlson and demurred, "Well, that's not the way I would have put it."

On September 7, 2011, Jay Carney, a spokesman for Matthews' beloved Obama, told the press corps, "Sorry. I'm going to shuck and jive! Time to shuck and jive."

Palin entitled her Facebook post, "Obama's shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lies."

On Wednesday, Hardball guest Jonathan Alter, a former Newsweek editor, railed against Palin, "...Shuck and jive, that's like talking about watermelon... for Jews, talking about Jews are greedy or the Irish are drunk."

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

NYT: Obama’s Aura of Defeat

In an argument that was echoed and amplified around the liberal twittersphere yesterday, New York’s Jonathan Chait made the case that the Romney campaign has bluffed the press into covering the last two weeks of the campaign as though Obama’s losing. Like George W. Bush in 2000, who famously (and probably foolishly) campaigned in California to lend himself an air of inevitability in the closing days of the campaign, Team Romney’s current brash confidence is designed to persuade the media to overlook the underlying numbers that still point to an advantage for the incumbent. And it’s working, Chait argues: The “widespread perception that Romney is pulling ahead,” he writes, “is Romney’s campaign suckering the press corps with a confidence game.”

I agree with Chait that the numbers still show Obama with a slightly clearer path than Romney to an (excruciatingly narrow) electoral college victory. But if you’re looking for a reason (besides, of course, the national polling showing an ever-so-slight Romney edge) why the media narrative has tilted toward the Republicans over the last week or so, I think the Romney campaign’s guarantee of victory has mattered much less than the Obama campaign’s recent aura of defeat.

Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals. Think of John McCain’s desperate hope that elevating Joe the Plumber would change the shape of the 2008 race, and you have the template for how tin-eared and desperate a losing presidential campaign often sounds — and ever since the first debate cost Obama his air of inevitability, he and his surrogates have sounded more like McCain did with Joe the Plumber than like a typical incumbent president on his way to re-election. A winning presidential campaign would not normally be hyping non-issues like Big Bird and “binders full of women” in its quest for a closing argument, or rolling out a new spin on its second-term agenda with just two weeks left in the race, or pushing so many advertising chips into dishonest attacks on its rival’s position on abortion. A winning presidential campaign would typically be talking about the issues that voters cite as most important — jobs, the economy, the deficit — rather than trying to bring up Planned Parenthood and PBS at every opportunity. A winning presidential campaign would not typically have coined the term “Romnesia,” let alone worked it into their candidate’s speeches.
Via: New York Times

Continue Reading...

JUST MORE WORDS: They Said It! Dem Pollster Says “Voters Still Don’t Know” What Obama’s Plans Are

Rasmussen Reports, the first polling outfit to release a survey from Ohio taken after the third and final presidential debate, shows that Mitt Romney has now pulled even with President Obama among the state’s likely voters — at 48 percent support apiece.  This is the first time since the summer that Rasmussen doesn’t show Obama ahead in Ohio.  In four previous polls released this fall, Rasmussen had always shown Obama ahead in the Buckeye State — by one point each time. 

Today’s release is the first Ohio poll in which Rasmussen shows each of the two candidates’ net favorability ratings, which can sometimes seem to provide an early indication of future polling movement.  The poll shows Romney with a net favorability rating of +5 points (51 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable) and Obama with a net favorability rating of zero points (49 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable). 

Ohio voters trust Romney over Obama on the economy (51 percent trust Romney more; 44 percent trust Obama more).  

In addition, as Ohio voters have shown in the past, they can’t stand Obamacare — which could give Romney an advantage if he presses that case (in person and especially on the airwaves) in the final fortnight of the race. 

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Obama Collapse: Romney Tied In Michigan

Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)^B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election. 

An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.

Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.

The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?

President Barack Obama             46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney            46.56%
another candidate            2.30%
Undecided             4.23%

Via: MyFoxDetroit

Continue Reading...

OBAMA PRIVATELY TOUTS SEQUESTER AFTER DENYING RESPONSIBILITY IN DEBATE

At Monday's third presidential debate, President Obama pointedly promised that sequestered budget cuts that will affect defense spending "will not happen." 

OBAMA: First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. [emphasis added]

The next morning, in an off-the-record interview with the editors of the Des Moines Register, President Obama reversed course, taking credit for a sequester that he anticipates will be "in place.":

OBAMA: "So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business." [emphasis added]

After loud complaints from new and mainstream media alike, the transcript of the President's interview with the Des Moines Register was made public today. Since these comments on the sequester represented a complete reversal of the position he took at the debate less than 24 hours earlier, it's easy to understand why the President's campaign initially wanted to keep them off the record.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Obama Campaign Says Polls Showing Romney Surging Is A “Bluff”…

DENVER - Obama campaign senior adviser David Plouffe sought to knock down claims by the Romney camp that they are gaining momentum and steaming toward victory on Wednesday. Plouffe called those claims "more bluff than reality" and contended that the Romney camp is "overstating their Electoral College situation."

"We think we maintain a lot more plausible pathways to 270 than Governor Romney, who we think essentially has to pull an inside straight in terms of the Electoral College," Plouffe said during a bus ride through Iowa, noting that the President is leading or essentially tied in polls of most battleground states. "Governor Romney's campaign likes to talk about how well they're doing in North Carolina, but we think we're doing a lot better in Ohio and Iowa and Nevada than they're doing in North Carolina."

Plouffe argued that the Obama campaign is "already sitting at a win number" in some of the battleground states, though he declined to say which ones. "I'm not going to call states, but we'd win the election if it were held today,"  he said. Obama campaign officials have sought to downplay the significance of Romney's rise in the polls following his strong performance in the first of three presidential debates.

Today, Plouffe argued that the bump Romney received was a natural and inevitable tightening in a race that widened artificially in September. "Governor Romney was not going to get 44 or 45 percent in battleground states," he said. "He's a major party nominee in a divided country in a tough economy. He's going to get 47, 48, 49 in a bunch of these states. So that's all that's happened is Governor Romney picked up some of what he lost. We don't consider that momentum."

Via: CBS News

Continue Reading...