Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Assessing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, A Year Later

It has now been a year since the US military eliminated the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy for gays and lesbians. There had been dire predictions that the volunteer military would fall apart, service members would resign, people would not sign up, morale would suffer, the defense of the country would be in peril. More than a thousand generals and admirals signed a statement claiming that repeal of DADT would be devastating for the military.

A new study has been released by the Palm Center, authored by experts from the US Military Academy, Columbia University, US Naval Academy, US Air Force Academy, US Marine War College, and the University of Maryland, among others. Rather than paraphrase, I will copy and paste their "Findings" section. Of course, you know what they found ...
1. The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.

2. A comparison of 2011 pre-repeal and 2012 post-repeal survey data shows that service members reported the same level of military readiness after DADT repeal as before it.

3. Even in those units that included openly LGB service members, and that consequently should have been the most likely to experience a drop in cohesion as a result of repeal, cohesion did not decline after the new policy of open service was put into place. In fact, greater openness and honesty resulting from repeal seem to have promoted increased understanding, respect and acceptance.

4. Recruitment was unaffected by the repeal of DADT. In an era when enlistment standards are tightening, service-wide recruitment has remained robust.

5. Retention was unaffected by the repeal of DADT. There was no mass exodus of military members as a result of repeal, and there were only two verifiable resignations linked to the policy change, both military chaplains. Service members were as likely to say that they plan to re-enlist after DADT repeal as was the case pre-repeal.

6. DADT repeal has not been responsible for any new wave of violence or physical abuse among service members. The policy change appears to have enabled some LGB service members to resolve disputes around harassment and bias in ways that were not possible prior to repeal.

7. Service-wide data indicate that overall, force morale did not decrease as a result of the new policy, although repeal produced a decline in individual morale for some service members who personally opposed the policy change and boosted individual morale for others.

8. There was no wave of mass disclosures of sexual orientation after repeal, and a minority of heterosexual service members reported in an independent survey that, after repeal, someone in their unit disclosed being LGB or that an LGB service member joined their unit.

9. Some military members have complained of downsides that followed from the policy change, but others identified upsides, and in no case did negative consequences outweigh benefits. In balance, DADT repeal has enhanced the military’s ability to pursue its mission.

10. The findings of this study are consistent with the reported assessments of repeal by military leadership including President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Marine Corps Commandant James Amos.

11. The findings of this study are consistent with the extensive literature on foreign militaries, which shows uniformly that readiness did not decline after foreign armed forces allowed LGB troops to serve openly.

12. As positive reports about DADT repeal emerged in the media, repeal opponents who predicted that open service would compromise readiness have adjusted their forecasts by emphasizing the possibility of long-term damage that will only become apparent in the future rather than identifiable consequences in the short-term.

One Year Out: An Assessment of DADT Repeal’s Impact on Military Readiness
The study seems frank in its appraisal. There have been people in the military who did not like the change, but overall there has been no net negative effect. In interviews with service members, the main effect has been ... nothing. They didn't notice any difference. The study examines criticism, for instance it quotes Rick Santorum saying that "Gay soldiers cause problems for people living in close quarters," but can not find any evidence to support the statement.

This study goes through the various aspects of military readiness and military life and evaluates how they have been impacted by the repeal of DADT. Again, no actual negative effects were found. Having gay and lesbian people in the military is just not a big deal.

84 Comments:

Anonymous Nothing to fear, but fear itself said...

This bears repeating

"Even in those units that included openly LGB service members, and that consequently should have been the most likely to experience a drop in cohesion as a result of repeal, cohesion did not decline after the new policy of open service was put into place. In fact, greater openness and honesty resulting from repeal seem to have promoted increased understanding, respect and acceptance."

September 11, 2012 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in Libyans stormed the American embassy and killed the ambassador because they don't think Americans should have free speech about Mohammed

let's watch what Obama does

September 12, 2012 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go, Anon, ridiculing God is free speech, not hate speech, right?

American killed in Libya protest over film

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press – 9 hours ago
CAIRO (AP) — Protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad fired gunshots and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing one American diplomat, witnesses and the State Department said. In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.

It was the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak in uprisings last year.

The protests in both countries were sparked by outrage over a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an American in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed that one State Department officer had been killed in the protest at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. She strongly condemned the attack and said she had called Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif "to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya."

Clinton expressed concern that the protests might spread to other countries. She said the U.S. is working with "partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide."

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said in a statement released by the State Department. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. "

In Benghazi, a large mob stormed the U.S. consulate, with gunmen firing their weapons, said Wanis al-Sharef, an Interior Ministry official in Benghazi. A witness said attackers fired automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades at the consulate as they clashed with Libyans hired to guard the facility.

Outnumbered by the crowd, Libyan security forces did little to stop them, al-Sharef said.

The crowd overwhelmed the facility and set fire to it, burning most of it and looting the contents, witnesses said.

One American was shot to death and a second was wounded in the hand, al-Sharef said. He did not give further details.

The violence at the consulate lasted for about three hours, but the situation has now quieted down, said another witness...."


And a few hours later:

"TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) - The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff were killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad, Libyan officials said Wednesday.

They said Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob guns and rocket propelled grenades...

Stevens, 52, was a career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and had already served two tours in Libya, including running the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Gadhafi. He was confirmed as ambassador to Libya by the Senate earlier this year..."

September 12, 2012 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There you go, Anon, ridiculing God is free speech, not hate speech, right?"

to begin with, I don't consider Mohammed God

but I agree that others are free to and I would agree it is rude to ridicule someone else's object of worship is rude, absent any other provocation

but ridiculing anything or anyone is free speech

Obama, as a sworn defender of the constitution, has an obligation to protect this right for American citizens

let's see how he does

September 12, 2012 9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Big Lie: Who Has God In His Heart?

The Big Lie: President Obama wants “take God off our coins.”

The Truth: Mitt Romney is using an invented attack in order ease fears about his religion and to agitate fears about the president’s faith.

During the Democratic National Convention, just one story interested the right wing press: “The Democrats booed God!” They were referring to an impromptu vote on the Democratic platform’s mention of God and a plank recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state. The voice vote was close and the chair accepted the “yeas” without any further consideration. The crowd booed.

This fictional booing of God was the headline of the Drudge Report on the day after Bill Clinton’s now-classic convention speech was the headline in most of reality. The convention was doomed! Or so the right claimed, because of those boos. A week later, the President is up by more than three percent in the Real Clear Politics average and by five percent in Gallup’s daily tracking poll.

As this bounce began to take flight, Mitt Romney decided to take the apocryphal Democratic razzing of the Almighty to a new level. Over the weekend he added a new refrain to his stump speech. “That pledge says ‘under God,’ and I will not take God out of our platform,” Romney told a crowd in Virginia Beach. “I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart.” Conan O’Brien wondered how Romney knew what a coin is.

Recognizing that no one outside of the right wing faux-outrage machine can summon much (or any) outrage about language in a party platform, Romney tried to make the issue concrete by suggesting that there is a concerted effort in America to remove “In God We Trust” from United States currency.

The Obama campaign responded, “The president believes as much that God should be taken off a coin as he does that aliens will attack Florida.”

Romney has continued to make his pointless assertion about not taking God out of his platform or his heart – and leaving the coinage part out. This raises the question: Why – if Mitt Romney supposedly wants to make this election strictly about the economy – is he invoking God?

The answer reveals both the weakness of Mitt’s campaign and the cravenness he now regularly displays.

Evangelicals are an essential part of the Republican base. One of the more reassuring aspects of the 2012 campaign is that Romney’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has not prevented him from consolidating support from far right establishment, who have often been suspicious of Mormons. At the Republican convention, evangelical leader Mike Huckabee said: “I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church than I do about where he takes this country.”

However, Romney’s faith remains an issue to many voters. According to Reuters/Ipsos, 35 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a Mormon. By embracing “God” in a vague way, Romney is reassuring these voters that he is a God-fearing man.

At the same time, Romney is playing on a persistent fear of President Obama that has been nurtured by the right wing. Nearly four years into his presidency, only 49 percent of voters correctly identify the President as a Christian. Nearly one in five think he is a Muslim.

By asserting that he will not take God “out of his heart,” Romney is, by inference, suggesting that his opponent has done so...

September 12, 2012 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, there is no constitutional right to speech without consequences.

These Christian bigots are trying to start a war by intentionally offending Muslims, and Obama had better not take the bait.

September 12, 2012 9:26 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "Anonymous, there is no constitutional right to speech without consequences".

Well, there is a constitutional right to speech without being subjected to violence for it. I'm with the Christian bigots here, they have a right to ridicule Mohammed all they want and I think they should do so just as I often ridicule the christian god and gods in general. Its the muslims who are in the wrong here, not the Christian bigots. Muslims need to be taught the world will not tolerate their violent responses to non-violent speech.

September 12, 2012 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I almost brought the example of Priya up earlier and, actually, she's quite right in this instance

btw, I read Obama's statement and, at least so far, I think he's handling it just right

the Libyan government can hold any view they want but they need to protect people and should be held accountable if they don't.

Another thing is that the people attacked and killed are not the people making the movie. Bad enough to be attacked over yoru own speech. But someone else's?

the entire way of thinking prevalent in the Middle East presents a threat to civilization

September 12, 2012 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, you don't know anything about "the entire way of thinking prevalent in the Middle East." There are more than one and a half billion Muslims, and a few thousand have been involved in these incidents. They have nuts, just like we do.

September 12, 2012 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said Middle East, not "Muslims"

there is, however, an Arab "street" view

ignoring it won't make it go away

certain views that are far too popular in the Middle East:

-that heresy against Islam is punishable by death and that all members of the general public are responsible for carrying out the sentence

-if you can't kill someone who offends you, you should find someone else of the same nationality and kill them

-that women are inferior to men

-that all Jews must die

these views are indeed held by nuts but many of them are in the Middle East governments and are broadly supported

September 12, 2012 3:03 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

It is noteworthy that even our Anons could not take issue with Jim's post.

September 12, 2012 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just didn't have the time or energy to slice and dice it this week

sorry, David, I'll try to be more vigilantly inflammatory going forward

Forward!

September 12, 2012 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke. In a sign of the chaos of during the attack, Stevens was brought alone by Libyans to the Benghazi Medical Center with no other Americans, and no one at the facility knew who he was, the doctor, Ziad Abu Zeid, told The Associated Press.

Stevens was practically dead when he arrived close to 1 a.m. on Wednesday, but "we tried to revive him for an hour and a half but with no success," Abu Zeid said. The ambassador had bleeding in his stomach because of the asphyxiation but no other injuries, he said.

President Barack Obama ordered increased security to protect American diplomatic personnel around world. Hours before the Benghazi attack, Egyptians angry over the film protested at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, climbing its walls and tearing down an American flag, which they replaced briefly with a black, Islamist flag.

"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi," Obama said, adding the four Americans "exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe."

Libya's interim president, Mohammed el-Megarif, apologized to the United States for the attack, which he described as "cowardly." Speaking to reporters, he offered his condolences on the death of the four Americans and vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country's close relations with the United States.

The three Americans killed with Stevens were security guards, he said.

"We extend our apology to America, the American people and the whole world," el-Megarif said.

The spark for the protests in Libya and Egypt was an obscure movie made in the United States by a California filmmaker who calls Islam a "cancer." Video excerpts posted on YouTube depict Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres.

But the brazen assaults - the first on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country - underscored the lawlessness that has taken hold in Libya and Egypt after revolutions ousted their autocratic secular regimes and upended the tightly controlled police state in both countries.

Islamists, who were long repressed under the previous regimes, have emerged as a powerful force and made up the bulk of the protests in both countries..."


For those pointing fingers at the middle easterners, don't forget our own religious inspired haters/killers.

Spend a Holy Hour with Christ against the Da Vinci Code
"You don’t have to see a movie that lies about Our Lord, uses Gnostic gospels that distort Sacred Scriptures history, and depicts Christ as having children by Mary Magdalene to figure out that it is bad. "

Disputed Madonna Painting In Brooklyn Show Is Defaced

Doctor Killed During Abortion Protest

George Tiller Killed: Abortion Doctor Shot At Church

September 12, 2012 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

telling someone they shouldn't see a movie or even defacing a painting is in no way comparable to killing an innocent third party

George Tiller was someone who killed innocent unborn children not an innocent third party

"These Christian bigots are trying to start a war by intentionally offending Muslims"

from what I've heard, the supposed catalyst for the Libyan riot was a movie financed by several Jewish individuals and any Christian group

this remark was probably made by an atheist bigot who stereotypes Christians

September 12, 2012 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not any Christian group, that is

September 12, 2012 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement

"Mitt Romney's sharply-worded attack on President Obama over a pair of deadly riots in Muslim countries last night has backfired badly among foreign policy hands of both parties, who cast it as hasty and off-key, released before the facts were clear at what has become a moment of tragedy.

Romney keyed his statement to the American Embassy in Cairo's condemnation of an anti-Muslim video that served as the trigger for the latest in a series of regional riots over obscure perceived slights to the faith. But his statement — initially embargoed to avoid release on September 11, then released yesterday evening anyway — came just before news that the American Ambassador to Libya had been killed and broke with a tradition of unity around national tragedies, and of avoiding hasty statements on foreign policy. It was the second time Romney has been burned by an early statement on a complex crisis: Romney denounced the Obama Administration's handling of a Chinese dissident's escape just as the Administration negotiated behind the scenes for his departure from the country.

"They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up," said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an "utter disaster" and a "Lehman moment" — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader.

He and other members of both parties cited the Romney campaign's recent dismissals of foreign policy's relevance. One adviser dismissed the subject to BuzzFeed as a "shiny object," while another told Politico that the subject was the "president's turf," drawing a rebuke from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

"I guess we see now that it is because they’re incompetent at talking effectively about foreign policy," said the Republican. "This is just unbelievable — when they decide to play on it they completely bungle it."

Romney has not backed off the response — "It's never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values," he said Wednesday — but his campaign faces a near consensus in Republican foreign policy circles that, whatever the sentiment, Romney faltered badly...."

September 12, 2012 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"this remark was probably made by an atheist bigot who stereotypes Christians"

Yay!! Free speech for all!

September 12, 2012 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Romney's assault on Obama was rare among Republicans. Sarah Palin and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus joined him in condemning the president, but no other significant GOP leader thought it prudent to immediately single out the president for criticism. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) all put out statements on the crisis, none attacking Obama.

A host of Republican foreign policy officials were quick to blast the "utter disaster" that was Romney's response.

Romney's reference to an "apology for America's values" was directed at a statement the U.S. Embassy in Cairo put out on Tuesday morning, but that statement, which was itself responding to the outrage over the anti-Islamic film, was issued before the embassy was attacked, despite Romney's statement to the contrary. What's more, the statement does not apologize for America's values, but rather supports a founding American value, religious tolerance, while referencing the "universal right of free speech." The statement in full:

'The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.'

Romney's rash condemnation of the president, released after it was known that there had been U.S. fatalities, calls to mind Sen. John McCain's snap decision in 2008 to suspend his presidential campaign to deal with the financial crisis. The move was judged deeply unpresidential and contributed to his defeat..."

September 12, 2012 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yesterday was the day the roof crashed in at 1600 Pennsylvania

-Obama's chief of staff and best buddy, now mayor of Chicago, is trying to break down teacher unions, Obama's biggest supporter

-Bob Woodward's book details Obama's lack of competency in political negotiations

-a few days after the Democrats booed Jersalem as Israel's capital, Obama snubs Netayahu, saying he's too busy to meet with him

-crowds attack the Cairo embassy and the embassy releases a statement appeasing Muslims, after which they storm an embassy in Libya, killing the U.S. ambassador

in 1978, Jimmy Carter helped depose a dictator and bring democracy to Iran

in 2011, Barack Obama helped depose a dictator and bring democracy to Libya

in both cases, our thanks was an attack on our embassy

could it be any more obvious?

September 12, 2012 11:51 PM  
Anonymous Look what all that money bought the GOP said...

And here's how Romney handled it:

"...Here is the Republican candidate for president of the United States on Wednesday, explaining why he broke into a moment of rising international tension and denounced the White House as “disgraceful” for a mild statement made by the American Embassy in Cairo about the importance of respecting other people’s religions:

“They clearly — they clearly sent mixed messages to the world. And — and the statement came from the administration — and the embassy is the administration — the statement that came from the administration was a — was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a — a — a severe miscalculation.”

Feel free to reread this when you’re staring at the ceiling at 4 a.m....

It isn’t clear how the movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.

The one big advantage to being a boring candidate is that you give the appearance of calm and stability. But, suddenly, Romney seemed to want to go for a piquant mélange of dull and hotheaded.

Virtually nobody seemed to think this was all that great a plan. The Romney campaign, according to CNN, helpfully passed out suggestions for supporters who might want to defend Mitt. (When asked whether he was too quick on the attack, loyalists were supposed to say: “No. It is never too soon to stand up for American values and interests.”)

But not all that many other Republicans seemed excited about joining in. A few social conservatives did unveil a hitherto-unnoticed passion for the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom to make fun of religion. “It was disheartening to hear the administration condemn Americans engaging in free speech that hurt the feelings of Muslims,” said Senator Jim DeMint.

And, let’s see, who else. Donald Rumsfeld tweeted support. Party chairman Reince Priebus chimed in: “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.” Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said the embassy’s comment “is like the judge telling the woman that got raped, ‘You asked for it because of the way you dressed.’ That’s the same thing.”

On this side: Mitt Romney, a totally disgraced former secretary of defense, a person named Reince Priebus, and a new Republican rape comment.

Two months to go and we’re rethinking our presumption that the Republican primary voters picked the most stable option."


RCP averages have Obama up by 3.5, even Fox has Obama up by 5. Keep dreaming about Carter, maybe reliving the past will help you sleep at night.

September 13, 2012 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would agree that Romney's comments weren't helpful or well-timed and I thought Obama's handling of the specific incident has been appropriate

still, the media has focused too much on Romney's statement, which is actually irrelevant at this point

a week from now, what will be appropriate to discuss is how Obama has mishandled our foreign policy in relation to the Arab Spring

and the statement from the embassy in Cairo was inappropriate in the aftermath of the attack on the embassy

it raises the question of whether Obama is in control of our diplomatic service and, if so, why did they think this statement would be something Obama approves of

September 13, 2012 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just to add to Obama's woes this week, the Census Bureau announced yesterday that household income dropped for the fourth straight and now stands at the 1995 level

most of that time, of course, Obama was President

as a matter of fact, it has dropped more since the recovery began

job growth is also slowing and people are giving up looking

not much evidence of the progress Obama claims he's making

September 13, 2012 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ramussen's poll of likely voters, the only one covering through yesterday's events, now has Romney leading by one

September 13, 2012 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ramussen's poll of likely voters, the only one covering through yesterday's events, now has Romney leading by one

Rasmussen resumes its outlier position while the RCP average of polls shows Obama ahead by 3.3%.

Meanwhile, Gallup reports
U.S. Satisfaction Up to 30%, Highest in Three Years


and

Democrats Pull Even With Republicans as Better on Terrorism

And then we have another GOPer's opinion of the RR campaign:

..."For hand-ringing Republicans who believe it is the duty of every registered member of their party to blindly follow this directionless campaign off the cliff, I would remind you of the warnings I began giving my fellow Republicans during the Bush era. My predictions beginning in 2003 that Big Government Republicanism would eventually cripple the economy and crush the conservative movement enraged party hacks and set off Washington sycophants. Some dimwits on right-wing talk radio actually challenged my conservative bona fides because I dared to challenge George W. Bush’s big spending ways.

I remain convinced that if more conservatives had spoken up earlier during the Age of Bush, the routs Republicans endured in 2006 and 2008 could have been avoided. Nancy Pelosi would have never been speaker and Barack Obama would be working on his fourth autobiography instead of his second term. But Republicans chose instead to shut their mouths, circle the wagons and compromise their values.

The consequences were disastrous. And the lesson is clear: If we want to win the battle of ideas in the long term, we should be willing to face the fact that Mitt Romney is likely to lose — and should, given that he’s neither a true conservative nor a courageous moderate. He’s just an ambitious man. Nothing wrong with that, except when you want to be president. Great leaders combine ambition and ideas and conviction.

Margaret Thatcher was tough and unapologetic about what she believed. Ronald Reagan was tough and unapologetic about what he believed. They won their campaigns, changed their party and transformed their countries because they were conservatives who dared to tell voters they planned to radically transform their governments. They got elected and did just that.

Craven calculation, on the other hand, does not pay off for conservatives. Romney needed to decide long ago who he was: the last of the Rockefeller Republicans (and thus somebody who probably wouldn’t have gotten through Iowa) or a genuine movement conservative with detailed ideas about how to right the country.

Instead, we have a nominee who represents the worst of both worlds. Any swing voter attracted by moderate Republicanism can’t vote for a man who ran away from his core convictions. And conservative voters don’t believe Romney has any core convictions. This has all the makings of a Greek tragedy, all playing out on C-SPAN...."

September 13, 2012 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rasmussen resumes its outlier position while the RCP average of polls shows Obama ahead by 3.3%."

actually, Ramussen is the only one with a poll covering yesterday

events make the polls changeable on a daily basis

RCP averages the last several weeks and includes polls of all registered voters which always slant more Dem than the voters that actually show up

as for the other story, the current events in the Middle East are a game changer

Obama may now be seen as having allowed potential terrorists to gain power over sovereign nations

September 13, 2012 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"RCP averages the last several weeks and includes polls of all registered voters which always slant more Dem than the voters that actually show up"

Here are the facts.

The "weeks" covered by the RCP average showing Obama ahead of Romney by 3.3% run from September 4 through September 12. That's 8 days or ONE WEEK AND ONE DAY, but by all means, delude yourself to sleep at night anyway you can.

1,000 Likely Voters (LV) have Obama up by 5 in the Democracy Corps poll conducted 9/8-9/12

1056 LV have Obama up by 5 in the FOX News poll conducted 9/9-911

873 LV have Obama up by 3 points in the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted 9/7-9/10V

710 LV have Obama up by 1 point in the ABCNews/Wash Post poll conducted 9/7-9/9

709 LV have Obama up by 6 points in the CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted 9/7-9/9

Comapared with 1500 LV who have Romney up by 1 point in the 3 day tracking Rasmussen poll covering 9/10-9/13 and Rasmussen reports "This is the first time in a week that Romney has held even a single-point advantage." In other words, it's a fluke.

Enjoy your outlier.

September 13, 2012 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, of the LV polls in the last week or so, we have Obama leads of 1-3-5-5-6 and Romney of 1

but the one with Romney's lead is the most recent and the 6 point lead is the oldest

and a number of events have occurred in the last two days

Obama has bumbled the Middle East like he's bumbled the economy

we're all poorer for having elected him

and he has about 7 weeks of bumbling to do

please, please build Obama's confidence

that's when he performs the worst

September 13, 2012 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney has been turned away by a large union whose endorsement he hoped to win.

The 330,000-member Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police union, announced that it would back no candidate for president this year, the first time the group had passed on an endorsement in its 98-year history. The union backed the Republican nominees in 2000, 2004 and 2008, and backed President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The rebuff came less than three months after Mr. Romney met with the order’s top brass in June seeking the group’s endorsement. “We had a lengthy and comprehensive meeting with Mr. Romney,” said Jim Pasco, the group’s executive director.

“The important challenges faced by our rank-and-file officers, the real issues in public safety, and the problems that our criminal justice system is facing are not the focus of either campaign,” Chuck Canterbury, the group’s president, said in a statement. “It would be irresponsible for us to support either candidate.”

People familiar with the group’s decision said leaders had been disturbed by Mr. Romney’s statements of strong support for several antiunion initiatives, particularly the move in Ohio to restrict the collective-bargaining rights of public-union employees, including police and firefighters. The measure was overturned by voters in Ohio last year.

In recent presidential elections, the group’s backing has been much sought after because of the heavy concentration of law enforcement officers in several of the key states. The group counts 39,225 members in Pennsylvania alone and another 24,181 in Ohio and 19,912 in Florida. In 2000 the union’s rank and file overrode the recommendation of its five-member presidential-endorsement panel at the time and backed George W. Bush, four years after supporting the Democratic ticket.

A candidate needs to win a two-third majority of the group’s national board to win an endorsement, but Mr. Pasco suggested the vote wasn’t close. “This vote was taken with no real debate,” he said. “There was real consensus that there was just no candidate for us to back.”

Mr. Canterbury bemoaned a lack of bipartisanship in Washington. “This national preoccupation with defeating or trumping political opponents has eroded confidence in our leaders and the entire political system,” he said. “In such an environment comity, compromise and cooperation have become virtually impossible,” Mr. Canterbury said. “We urge our members to exercise their right to vote in this election.”"

September 13, 2012 8:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fascinating (yawn!)

September 13, 2012 9:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wake up, sleepyhead. Here comes the next poll --

"Obama Widens Lead Over Mitt Romney By 7 Points: Poll
Reuters | Posted: 09/13/2012 5:49 pm

WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama widened his lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney to 7 percentage points in a Reuters/Ipsos poll of likely voters on Thursday, the latest survey to show the Democrat ahead in the run-up to the Nov. 6 election.

The daily online poll asked 990 likely voters over the previous four days which candidate they would pick if the vote took place today, with 48 percent choosing Obama and 41 percent picking Romney.

The gap has been widening since Obama grabbed the lead in the rolling poll on Sept. 7 when he scooped up 46 percent of likely voters to Romney's 44 percent after the Democratic convention.

"What that really means is that Obama is in good shape," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, attributing some of Obama's uptick to the slowly improving sentiment toward the direction of the country shown in Wednesday's telephone poll.

Among all 1,231 registered voters surveyed online, Obama led with 45 percent to Romney's 39 percent.

Thursday's online poll also found far more registered voters preferred the incumbent's policies and approach on taxes (41 percent picked Obama, 30 percent Romney), healthcare (44 percent Obama, 28 percent Romney) and Social Security (39 percent Obama, 27 percent Romney)...."

September 13, 2012 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poll: Obama opens leads in swing states Ohio, Florida, Virginia
By Ian Swanson - 09/14/12 06:25 AM ET

"President Obama holds leads over Mitt Romney in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, according to a new poll.

Obama has a seven-point lead over Romney in Ohio, and five point advantages in both Florida and Virginia, according to the NBC News, Wall Street Journal and Marist poll.

All three states are basically must wins for Romney. His path to victory would be severely complicated if Obama wins any of the three states. With victories in two of the states, it would likely be mathematically impossible for Romney to overtake Obama in the race for 270 electoral votes.

The poll shows Obama with 50 percent support in Ohio compared to 43 percent support for Romney. Six percent are undecided.

In Florida, Obama gets the support of 49 percent compared to 44 percent for Romney.

This result is particularly disappointing at this stage of the campaign for Romney. While Obama has consistently held a lead in Ohio, polling in Florida has been tight and it is believed that Obama will be hurt there more by the state’s rocky economy and housing market.

In Virginia, Obama also gets 49 percent support compared to Romney’s 44 percent."

September 14, 2012 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, the last couple of days we've seen the consequences of Obama's mishandling of Middle Eastern policy and the fact that the economy has gotten so bad that the Fed Chairman announced he will do whatever it takes to spur growth

it will catch up

Obama can't even keep up with who our allies are

September 14, 2012 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“And the lesson is clear: If we want to win the battle of ideas in the long term, we should be willing to face the fact that Mitt Romney is likely to lose — and should, given that he’s neither a true conservative nor a courageous moderate. He’s just an ambitious man. Nothing wrong with that, except when you want to be president. Great leaders combine ambition and ideas and conviction.”
--Joe Scarborough

September 14, 2012 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

didn't expect much from Romey so I'm not disappointed

Ramussen has Romney up three

a little history, they were the only one who called the last Presidential election right

being an accurate is apparently an outlier in our liberal propaganda media complex

September 14, 2012 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Oxford American Dictionary:

"outlier |ˈoutˌlīər|
noun
a person or thing situated away or detached from the main body or system
• Statistics - a data point on a graph or in a set of results that is very much bigger or smaller than the next nearest data point."

Rasmussen reports the only polling data showing Romney ahead of Obama in the RCP average. All other polls in the RCP average show Obama ahead of Romney by an average of 3.1 percentage points.

Rasmussen's data on the number of LV who plan to vote for Romney is bigger than every other poll's data.

Rasmussen is an outlier to everyone who understands the definition of the term, except of course one right winger who doesn't need facts, fact checkers, the scientific method, or any information with a basis in reality.

In mid-September 2008, as now, Rasmussen was an outlier, showing a tie at 48% each for Obama and McCain (Rasmussen Tracking 9/15 - 9/17/2008 3000 LV 2.0 48 48 Tie). By election day, Rasmussen found it hard to deny the truth.

I expect Rasmussen will come around any day now, especially as Romney keeps screwing up:

"Mitt Romney Apologizes for America
9/14/12

Mitt Romney has a very simple foreign policy vision: Don't apologize for America. It's right there on the cover of his book. That's why, when the US Embassy in Cairo attempted to preempt an attack on its compound by condemning a virulently anti-Islam film, Romney was quick to not-apologize. Instead, he accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with the embassy attackers by speaking out against bigotry: "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Here's what he told ABC News in an interview on Friday, though, when asked about the film:

'Well, I haven't seen the film. I don't intend to see it. I you know, I think it's dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people would't do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it's not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.'

Notice anything? It's pretty much the exact same sentiment expressed by the US Embassy in Cairo—the one that prompted Romney to accuse the Obama administration of sympathizing with extremists: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims–as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." Like Romney, the Embassy went on to explain (in a subsequent tweet) that an offensive low-budget film was no justification for attacks.

There's nothing wrong with Romney's condemnation of bigotry. The only mystery is why he ever thought there was."

September 14, 2012 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have no problem objecting to the film that ridicules Mohammed if Muslims had simply objected

the constant resort to threatened and real violence by Muslims, however, makes me think these people need to go cold turkey

perhaps, at this point, the best thing for us to do would be to set up ship off the coasts of these countries and beam the film into their living room

then, maybe then they could mature into a civilized society

they really need to get over themselves

btw, when I say I would have no problem objecting to the film that ridicules Mohammed, I don't mean to imply that I endorse Islam, peaceful or not

I actually think Islam is false religion

but discussing that should be done in a sober manner

facetiously and mockingly ridiculing something someone sincerely believes is wrong

btw, the fabled Ramussen poll has Romney lead dropping to two points this morning

Romney better watch out

"In mid-September 2008, as now, Rasmussen was an outlier, showing a tie at 48% each for Obama and McCain. By election day, Rasmussen found it hard to deny the truth."

this is a baseless propaganda statement

there is no reason to believe Rasmussen wasn't right at that point in time

at the one point when you could test whether Rasmussen had it right, the election, he was still an outlier among the polls and called it exactly right

September 15, 2012 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, the fabled Ramussen poll has Romney lead dropping to two points this morning

As expected.

Rasmussen will eventually find the same data, OBAMA IS LEADING, as all the other polls.

"I actually think Islam is false religion"

Thank Allah the US Bill of Rights protects all religions.

For those who forget:

"In the eyes of Mitt Romney, Reince Priebus and other conservatives, President Obama committed the grievous sin of “apologizing” to violent Islamists when the the U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement condemning anti-Muslim bigotry. (The statement was not an apology, did not come from Obama and came before the mob turned violent.) No matter how offensive the film was, it is protected by freedom of speech and any condemnation of it is nothing less than an “apology for American values,” Romney said.

Republicans, however, were willing to let similar statements slide when the guy in the White House had an “R” next to his name.

In 2008, a U.S. sniper shot a Quran in Iraq, causing an uproar. President Bush expressly apologized. “He apologized for that in the sense that he said that we take it very seriously,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. “We are concerned about the reaction. We wanted them to know that the president knew that this was wrong.” The sniper was disciplined and the upper echelons of the military put out numerous statements trying to soothe tensions. Nobody accused Bush of “apologizing to al-Qaida.”

Bush also personally and publicly rebuked anti-Islamic speech delivered by a top general, which sparked outrage among Muslims. “Look, it just doesn’t reflect what the government thinks,” Bush told Muslims in Indonesia. Incidentally, that general, Jerry Boykin, is now an adviser to the Romney campaign and a top executive at the Family Research Council.

Televangelist Pat Robertson came under even more withering fire from then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell told business executives in 2002, the week after Robertson and other Christian conservatives made disparaging comments about Muslims, that anti-Islam rhetoric “must be rejected.” “We will reject the kinds of comments you have seen recently where people in this country say that Muslims are responsible for the killing of all Jews and who put out hatred. This kind of hatred must be rejected … This kind of language must be spoken out against. We cannot allow this image to go forth of America,” he said, delivering a far stronger rebuke than the Cairo embassy’s statement.

Bush himself told reporters at the U.N., “Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans.” If Romney had any objection to the comments then, there is no public record of them.

Perhaps the most analogous event to the current turmoil over an anti-Islamic film was the uproar sparked in 2006 when a Danish newspaper printed a cartoon disparaging the Prophet Mohammed. The Bush State Department was unequivocal in its condemnation of the comics and expressed something very close to sympathy for Muslims offended by the comics. “We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive,” State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said at the time. Again, there was no Republican backlash."

September 15, 2012 1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"at the one point when you could test whether Rasmussen had it right, the election, he was still an outlier among the polls and called it exactly right"

What are you smoking? No, Rasmussen was not an outlier among the polls on election day 2008.

Here are the RCP averages for November 2008 and even any idiot can see, none of the polls were in red or indicated a McCain victory like Rasmussen had in Sept 2008. By election day, Rasmussen was saying the same thing all the other polls said: Obama will win by landslide -- in Rasmussen's case, 6 points.

As I predicted, Rasmussen has brought Romney's so-called lead down another point to a single point spread in Romney's favor today. Soon they'll show a tie and then they'll show Obama in the lead all the way to election day.

September 16, 2012 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama snubs Netayahu [sic], saying he's too busy to meet with him"

Liar. That's not what Netanyahu said.

"In a separate interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Netanyahu dismissed the idea that Obama snubbed him last week by turning down a request to meet when the two are in New York later this month for the United Nations General Assembly.

"We've had our discussions. Our schedules on this visit didn't work out," Netanyahu said.

The Israeli leader also pushed back on the idea that he is upset with the Obama administration for not drawing a red line with Iran over its development of nuclear capabilities. He made it clear last week that he is growing frustrated with the United States for continuing to rely on peaceful methods and generated speculation that Israel is getting ready to strike Iran on its own.

"No," he said Sunday. "President Obama has said that he's determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and I appreciate that and I respect that." Asked again if Obama has thrown Israel under the bus by not being more firm with Iran -- a reference to a charge by Romney that Obama has "thrown allies like Israel under the bus" in his first term -- Netanyahu replied, "There is no bus."

Still, the Israeli leader warned that Iran is "six months away from being about 90 percent of having the rich uranium for an atom bomb" and emphasized that inherent in Obama's stance is that he is prepared to "act before they get nuclear weapons."

Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, also appeared on "Meet the Press." She said the administration is prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- including the use of military force -- but said Iran isn't as far along in its capabilities as Netanyahu suggested.

"They aren't there yet," Rice said. "There is time and space for the pressure we are mounting ... in terms of sanctions ... to still wield results.""

September 16, 2012 12:23 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

David S. Fishback said... “It is noteworthy that even our Anons could not take issue with Jim's post.”

'second

September 17, 2012 5:45 AM  
Anonymous anyone can see it said...

at least Improv kept down the moronic word count this time

"Gay British actor Rupert Everett is being praised for recent comments he made about gay parenting.

The star of films like "Shakespeare In Love" and "My Best Friend's Wedding" told the Sunday Times Magazine that he "can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads... Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That's just my opinion."

September 17, 2012 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama has a small lead in all the polls except Rasmussen- and, importantly, many of the swing states

but to hear the Obama campaign and his mainstream media advocates tell it, he is blowing Romney away and has the race all but won

amazing

meanwhile the horrendous economy, whose correction is now completely being attended to by the unelected Fed, is being joined by a deteriorating international scene

the Obama administration has left embassies without protection and repeatedly pointed the blame at the free speech of American citizens instead of the clearly new offensive of al quaeda and the taliban

meanwhile, Israel and Iran draw closer to war, as do China and Japan

and the Obama administration has made all this possible by projecting a weak and helpless America

better off than foru years ago?

the world is on the verge of exploding and our resources to deal with it have been drained by four years of Obamineptitude

when will they ever learn?

September 17, 2012 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you remember 9/11/2001, right?

America was attacked and the attackers said "the storm of planes will continue"

they never made another hit on America while W was President

meanwhile O whined about the measures the W administration took to protect us

this year on the anniversary of that infamous attack, they hit us again

surged embassy grounds, American soil, and killed the ambassador

O had let our guard down

in the days since the fabled Gallup poll has tracked the on-going deterioration of O's standing with the public

here is the Gallup numbers from 9/11 on:

11- seven point lead
12- six point lead
13- five point lead
14- four point lead
15- three point lead

I'm sensing a pattern here

the Obama campaign is in free-fall

there's no floor

get used to President Romney

September 17, 2012 5:36 PM  
Anonymous that's right, get used to President Romney said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 17, 2012 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"in the days since the fabled Gallup poll has tracked the on-going deterioration of O's standing with the public

here is the Gallup numbers from 9/11 on:

11- seven point lead
12- six point lead
13- five point lead
14- four point lead
15- three point lead

I'm sensing a pattern here

the Obama campaign is in free-fall

there's no floor

get used to President Romney"

update: in the esteemed Gallup poll, Obama's lead is now down to one

domestically, our economy is collapsing

around the world, the lack of leaderhip is causing explosive convulsions

the buck stops with Barry

btw, the mainstream media is making a big ruckus over the fact that Romney said half of all Americans are dependent on the government

newsflash: most who would be offended don't vote



September 18, 2012 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like a Democratic kerplunk!!

September 18, 2012 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Romney wishes he had Obama's numbers said...

RCP averages:

8/25 Obama +1.3
8/26 Obama +1.4
RNC Convention begins
8/27 Obama +1.1
8/28 Obama +1.0
8/29 Obama +1.1
8/30 Obama +0.6
RNC Convention ends
8/31 Obama + 0.5
9/1 Obama + 0.3
9/2 Obama + 0.1
9/3 Tie
DNC Convention starts
9/4 Obama + 0.1
9/5 Tie
9/6 Tie
DNC Convention ends
9/7 Obama +0.7
9/8 Obama +1.3
9/9 Obama +1.8
9/10 Obama +2.9
9/11 Obama +3.5
9/12 Obama +3.3
9/13 Obama + 3.5
9/14 Obama + 3.1
9/15 Obama + 3.1
9/16 Obama + 3.1
9/17 Obama + 3.0
9/18 Obama + 2.9

September 18, 2012 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Romney wishes he had Obama's numbers said...

The Examiner reports

Multiple new polls: Obama holding solid lead, Romney fading in all areas
9/18/12


"With less than two months until the 2012 presidential election, new polls suggest that Mitt Romney is in a deeper hole than he thought.

In late August, Mitt Romney found himself running neck and neck with President Obama and in some polls, was even in the lead. With some confidence, the Republicans held their convention in the swing state of Florida and put on three days of underwhelming promotion. The next week in North Carolina, the Democrats held their convention and changed the course of the election. After an attack in Libya left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, Mitt Romney attempted to seize the opportunity to make President Obama look weak. It backfired.

Speaking too soon and without the facts, Romney came across as someone who was too quick and jumped the gun. Needing to change course, the Romney campaign put the focus back on the economy, but then the magazine "Mother Jones" released the video that could be the straw that broke the Romney campaign's back. In a video filmed by Jimmy Carter's grandson, Mitt Romney was caught telling a group of Republican donors that 47% of Americans rely solely on the government and that they would stick with President Obama no matter what.

With all the negative press piling up, Mitt Romney and his standing with the American people is starting to fall. According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, President Obama is leading Mitt Romney by five points nationally, holding a 48% to 43% lead. A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that President Obama is holding a five point lead in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio and has a seven point edge in Virginia.

The area where Mitt Romney needs gain is with Hispanic voters. According to a new poll released by Latino Decisions, Romney is trailing the president 68% to 26%, a 42 point margin that could doom the former CEO of Bain Capital's chances in November. In an attempt to chip away at the president's lead, Romney gave a speech at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Los Angeles, but the result was underwhelming.

While the Republican party is often viewed as strong on foreign policy, they are having a hard time getting ahead of the president considering his massive foreign policy successes. The Pew Research Center released a new poll this week asking the American people what they thought about Mitt Romney's speech following the attacks in Libya where he was quick to criticize the Obama administration. With only 26% of Americans supporting Romney's speech, the overall reaction was negative. Nearly half of the American people, 48%, disapproved of Romney's reaction while 26% gave no opinion.

Election day is right around the corner and with the economy still in a slow recovery, Mitt Romney should be in the lead. The president is doing what he should, highlighting the positives and masking the negatives. With Mitt Romney unable to capitalize and continuing to shoot himself in the foot, the Republican party might have to deal with four more years of the Obama family living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

September 18, 2012 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Toronto Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobar has been suspended for three games and his salary will be given to GLAAD because he said "you are a faggot"

the gay assault on free speech continues

"RCP averages:

9/11 Obama +3.5
9/12 Obama +3.3
9/13 Obama + 3.5
9/14 Obama + 3.1
9/15 Obama + 3.1
9/16 Obama + 3.1
9/17 Obama + 3.0
9/18 Obama + 2.9"

funny how enraged Dems become at the mere mention that Obama may not be killing Romney at the polls

it's because one of their main strategies is always "oh, everyone agrees with us"

they try hard to create the impression that their victory is inevitable

if they lose that, they will have to discuss the performance of the current individual in the White House

and, obviously, that's not a winner for them

as discussed before, the RCP is an average over time so it won't reflect current developments

but it seems to be trending in a similar direction to Gallup and Rasmussen, just at a slower pace because it includes a period before we were attacked on 9/11/2012 averaged in

I guess Dems have to put the best face they can on that tragedy during Obama's watch

September 18, 2012 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, Toronto is in Canada and the American concept of "freedom of speech" is irrelevant. Second, nobody has freedom of speech without consequences. Guy's a jerk, he doesn't go to jail, he gets fined by his boss. Fair enough.

September 18, 2012 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With less than two months until the 2012 presidential election, new polls suggest that Mitt Romney is in a deeper hole than he thought."

not really

he's slightly behind

"Democrats held their convention and changed the course of the election."

their convention was fun but the glow is fading

Obama has dropped daily in the Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls

"After an attack in Libya left four Americans dead, Romney attempted to seize the opportunity to make President Obama look weak. It backfired."

among the beltway talking heads

but there's a real world out there and the real people vote

"Speaking too soon and without the facts, Romney came across as someone who was too quick and jumped the gun."

oh, he spoke too soon

but, again, the whole thing was exaggerated by Obama's advocates in the mainstream media

no one else much noticed

and Romney was basically right

Obama has been apologizing to the Arab world since he got into office

in any case, since then Romney has been climbing in the polls so hard to see how that could be called a "backfire"

"Needing to change course, the Romney campaign put the focus back on the economy,"

that's where the focus belongs

"but then the magazine "Mother Jones" released the video that could be the straw that broke the Romney campaign's back."

how? it has had no discernible effect on the polls

"In a video filmed by Jimmy Carter's grandson, Mitt Romney was caught telling a group of Republican donors that 47% of Americans rely solely on the government and that they would stick with President Obama no matter what."

not an outrageous statement at all

most voting Americans would agree

"With all the negative press piling up, Mitt Romney and his standing with the American people is starting to fall."

not really

"According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, President Obama is leading Mitt Romney by five points nationally, holding a 48% to 43% lead. A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that President Obama is holding a five point lead in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio and has a seven point edge in Virginia."

you said "starting to fall"

where was he in these polls before this?

"The area where Mitt Romney needs gain is with Hispanic voters."

I'd agree with this

although, I think he can win without changing this, increasing his share by not that much woulod make it impossible for Obama to beat him

"While the Republican party is often viewed as strong on foreign policy, they are having a hard time getting ahead of the president considering his massive foreign policy successes."

what "successes"?

he has turned our few Arab allies into enemies?

he has threatened the security of Israel by creating the impression he doesn't support them

he has had no effect on Iran's effort to go nuclear

China has snubbed our Secretary of State and is making provocative steps against our most loyal Asian ally, Japan

he supposedly had al quaeda and the Taliban on the run with his indiscriminant drone attacks around the world, and, yet, on the anniversary of 9/11, they launched attacks on our embassies worldwide

"The Pew Research Center released a new poll this week asking the American people what they thought about Mitt Romney's speech following the attacks in Libya where he was quick to criticize the Obama administration. With only 26% of Americans supporting Romney's speech, the overall reaction was negative. Nearly half of the American people, 48%, disapproved of Romney's reaction while 26% gave no opinion."

strange, it hasn't affected the polls

"Election day is right around the corner and with the economy still in a slow recovery,"

not slow,

slowing

September 18, 2012 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney should be in the lead. The president is doing what he should, highlighting the positives and masking the negatives. With Mitt Romney unable to capitalize and continuing to shoot himself in the foot,"

if you're saying Romney is not the perfect candidate, you're preaching to the choir

but the tide is turning as the election is approaching and Americans will realize we can't afford four more years of national deterioration"the Republican party might have to deal with four more years of the Obama family living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

that's a tragedy we'd all have to deal with, not just Republicans

just ask a libertarian:

"Though it probably wouldn't qualify as an endorsement, Clint Eastwood re-iterated his gay marriage stance in an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' talk show today.

The 82-year-old Hollywood legend -- who took heat for delivering a bizarre, rambling speech at the Republican National Convention in which he addressed an imaginary President Obama -- told DeGeneres he defines himself as a Libertarian, and that his stance on marriage equality is "a part of the libertarian idea: Leave everybody alone!"

He then went on to note, "The condition of society right now, with the high unemployment rates and the tremendous debt we're increasing and the government spending, I'd think there'd be many more worthy issues to think about rather than worrying about gay marriage."

As far as being Libertarian is concerned, Eastwood explained, "You're socially liberal, leave everybody alone, but you believe in fiscal responsibility and you believe in government staying out of your life." He also took time out to talk about the "Obama chair speech" controversy, quipping, "The Democrats who were watching thought I was going senile, and the Republicans knew I was.""

September 18, 2012 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First of all, Toronto is in Canada"

notice how all major Canadian cities are so close to our border even though Canada has the second largest land mass in the world

notice how the Blue Jays play in the American League

notice how the U.S. Congress has granted basball and anti-trust exemption and Canada has to follow along

face it: any important part of Canada is as American as D.C.

they do what they're told to ny Americans and they don't get a vote

"and the American concept of "freedom of speech" is irrelevant."

just a concept, huh?

we actually think it's a natural right

"Second, nobody has freedom of speech without consequences."

perhaps, but this goes beyond social consequences

calling someone a faggot shouldn't be treated as a worse epithet than any others

if the guy had said "you're an idiot", there'd be no consequences

"Guy's a jerk, he doesn't go to jail, he gets fined by his boss. Fair enough."

not really, when his boss has control over his future employment in his chosen profession

if the typical TTFer makes the boss mad, they can always go work at another 7-11

it's not so easy for baseball players

they should be free to express themselves, juts like the rest of us

September 18, 2012 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This week marks the first anniversary of the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

“This is the anniversary of the Department of Defense using our military to promote a very radical social agenda,” said Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It’s not a time to celebrate. It’s a time to mourn.”

President Bill Clinton implemented DADT in 1993, allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military as long as no one discussed their sexual preferences. President Obama signed the repeal in December 2010; it took effect on Sept. 20, 2011.

The new policy has definitely impacted the morale and has threatened the freedom of service members, Crews said.

“The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not as a social experiment in which our troops serve as human subjects,” he said. “While many will ignore the negative impacts, or pretend that they don’t exist, threats to our troops’ freedom are mounting.”

Some of the negative consequences of the repeal, according to Chaplain Alliance, include:

•A male service member sexually harassing another male service member at an officer-training school. The harassed service member reported the incident, but superiors took no action.
•A chaplain threatened with early retirement, then reassigned, because he expressed concerns about the repeal.
•Same-sex ceremonies have been held at military chapels — including one in Louisiana, where the state constitution defines marriage as one-man and one-woman.
“Compounding the outrage, service members are not free to speak out about these matters,” Crews said. “This ensures that distrust in the ranks will increase and morale will decrease as the number of silenced victims grows.”

Crew said that a military religious freedom act introduced in January, House Resolution 3828, would help military personnel greatly.

“It’s a right-of-conscience clause that would provide protection to military personnel, so

they would not be affected by their opposition to the repeal,” he explained.

If passed, H.R. 3828 would protect members of the Armed Forces who hold religious or moral convictions concerning “the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality” from discrimination or punishment for their beliefs.

The bill seeks to protect chaplains from being ordered to perform any services or ceremonies contrary to their faith, while preventing any same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed on military posts, in accordance with the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The bill is awaiting action in both the House and the Senate.

September 18, 2012 7:04 PM  
Anonymous Romney rolls Obama said...

President Obama's post-convention "bounce" is shrinking.

New Gallup survey results out Tuesday show Obama leading Mitt Romney by a single percentage point.

The 47-46 point lead represents a much tighter race than just a week ago. Poll results last week showed Obama leading by 7 points, on the heels of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Many polls over the past two weeks appeared to show Obama doing better than Romney.

But the race is tightening back up again.

The Romney gains have happened since the attacks on American embassies worldwide have shown Obama helpless to respond.

A series of supposed Romney missteps from his criticism of Obama for apologizing to Arabs to a leaked tape where Romney says Obama voters are dependent on government seem to have helped Romney with the voters.

September 18, 2012 7:23 PM  
Anonymous attention Americans: we have a socialist in the White House said...

"A recording from a Loyola University appearance by President Barack Obama has been posted to YouTube.

The sentiments revealed in the video reveal that Obama's views about economic justice differ from those of most Americans. Referring to efforts to restore the efficacy of government, Obama said:

“The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate wealth redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

A request for comment to confirm the authenticity of the leaked Loyola video was not returned by the Obama campaign.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama told an Ohio campaign audience, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Obama has been more wary of such language this time, concealing his views. Earlier this year when the president pushed for the Buffett Rule, a plan that would have raised taxes on the wealthy, he maintained such a tax increase was not designed to redistribute wealth but to spur investment in the U.S. economy."

September 18, 2012 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Earlier this year when the president pushed for the Buffett Rule, a plan that would have raised taxes on the wealthy, he maintained such a tax increase was not designed to redistribute wealth but to spur investment in the U.S. economy."

uh, Earth to Barry

are you reading, Barry?

taxing investments won't spur investments

taxing something doesn't create more of it, it discourages it

it's an empirical and verifiable fact

that's why we tax cigarettes

if you tax investing, people will do something else

like sitting around the house, getting high and watching the tube

and waiting for their check from the government

September 18, 2012 7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, "Barry" is not reading what you write.

Calm down.

September 18, 2012 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, the one percent might think it sounds terrible to talk about "redistributing the wealth." But the fact is, prosperity is wildly and dangerously unbalanced in our country. The inequality is a crisis, as the middle class dissolves and the US splits into a small number of haves and a great number of have nots.

I have to laugh reading your comments, realizing that to you this is a horrible idea, "redistributing the wealth." It makes sense to most people. The workers ought to get their fair piece of the pie.

September 18, 2012 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, you're right, Barry is probably not reading my comments tonight

he's in NYC

first, he went on Dave Letterman, where Barry, a one-percenter, sat around with Dave, a point-one-percenter, and made jokes about how rich Romney is

Barry, the first sitting President to find time to regularly do talk shows has probably set a record as the most frequent guest on the Letterman show

Dave has, bizarrely, become an Obama campaign worker as biased as Chris Matthews

after the show, Barry headed out for a couple of lavish parties with other one-percenters where he will begged them for money, and (wink-wink) made them a few promises

he's probably still at those parties right now

"Anon, the one percent might think it sounds terrible to talk about "redistributing the wealth.""

that's actually a euphemism

the truth is that what we're talking is governmental theft of the someone's earnings to give to someone who didn't earn it

"But the fact is, prosperity is wildly and dangerously unbalanced in our country. The inequality is a crisis, as the middle class dissolves and the US splits into a small number of haves and a great number of have nots."

what's wild is your exaggeration

the government should reduce barriers to opportunity and advancement

mere redistribution, except for true need, would produce a motiveless society

why would anyone strive to produce and create if you wind up with the same result anyway?

"I have to laugh reading your comments, realizing that to you this is a horrible idea, "redistributing the wealth." It makes sense to most people. The workers ought to get their fair piece of the pie."

workers should get the wage they've agreed to work for

the biggest problem is lack of opportunity which is a direct result of Obama's hostility to free enterprise

half of kids graduating form college can't get a job

and it's not because of George Bush

it's because of Barry


September 19, 2012 12:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Governor Romney,
I’d like to say congratulations on winning the republican nomination. But, I wish you stayed in Massachusetts. You’re plan for America isn’t what we need, and would hurt us more than it would help.

First, repealing Obama care and other health plans he’s put in place have helped families across America, including mine. I live in a middle class family, and two years ago my little sister; Kennedy was denied insurance because of her pre-existing condition. This was a huge emotional stress and financial burden on my entire family. Under Obama Care, insurance companies can no longer deny Kennedy and kids like her, the coverage they need and deserve. Because of Obama care my little sister was able to have the several surgeries she needed that helped save her life. Once the President was elected he put Obama Care into action, just like he promised and made it so that you could get insurance with pre-existing conditions. This has made a direct impact on my family. My family is with out a doubt better off now, than we were four years ago!

It is to my understanding that you stated that you were going to repeal Obama Care, including the part I have mentioned, which will take away the insurance we have and need for my sister Kennedy. Why do you think she doesn’t deserve health care? Also, when you were interviewed on “Meet the Press”, you stated that you would NOT repeal this part of Obama Care, but then your campaign backpedalled and on the “Tonight show with Jay Leno”, you said that you WOULD repeal this.

Also, you’re domestic plans (birth control, gay rights etc.) are horrible! Women should get to manage their own health, and if you wonder why you’re not appealing to many women voters, rethink your birth control and women’s’ rights plans. And people should be able to marry whom they want. We built this country so people could have freedom, and not have religious beliefs control them to that length. This country was in no way built on any religion, so we should not create laws that repress the American people in a religious way and hurt our most vulnerable.

Sincerely,
Jackson Ripley, age 12

September 19, 2012 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"half of kids graduating form college can't get a job

and it's not because of George Bush

it's because of Barry"


When Bush left office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month at an accelerating pace. Obama's stimulus stopped the freefall, the stock market has recovered and we have gained over 4 million new jobs.

Bikini Graph time! Unemployment rate down to 8.1% — lowest since President Obama took office

September 19, 2012 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Washington (CNN) - New poll numbers out Wednesday from three key battleground states underscore the danger of that leaked fundraising video for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

According to fresh New York Times/CBS News/Quinnipiac polling, majorities of likely voters in Wisconsin, Virginia and Colorado say that Romney's policies favor the rich.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

In Wisconsin, 55% of likely voters say a Romney administration would benefit wealthy people. In Virginia, 56% say the same. In Colorado, the number is 54%.

The number of voters in those swing states who think Romney's policies would favor the middle class? Just about 10%.

Contrast that with President Barack Obama's numbers on the same question.

In all three states, a plurality say Obama's policies favor the middle class. Only a sliver of voters say the president favors the rich, while roughly a quarter say he favors the poor.

The new polls were taken before video surfaced of Romney privately telling a group of rich donors that nearly half the country is "dependent on the government" - and that's precisely the problem.

The Romney video reinforces what people already think about the candidate, and that only helps the Obama campaign push the now-familiar narrative that Romney is a rich plutocrat who is of touch with the concerns of regular people.

September 19, 2012 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"notice how all major Canadian cities are so close to our border even though Canada has the second largest land mass in the world"

What in the world do you mean to imply by this? That proximity to the U.S. has led to the growth of Canadian cities? Surely you can't mean that.

Escobar got better than he deserved, and your argument that anti-lgbt insults are more seriously punished is silly. If I were to pain "You're an idiot" on my face at work, I'd be out of a job. Could you?

September 19, 2012 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clint Eastwood Talks Gay Marriage, RNC Speech Controversy With Ellen DeGeneres

"Clint Eastwood re-iterated a generally pro-gay marriage stance in an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' talk show, but whether his statement qualifies as an endorsement or not is uncertain.

The 82-year-old Hollywood legend -- who took heat for delivering a bizarre, rambling speech at the Republican National Convention in which he addressed an imaginary President Obama -- told DeGeneres he defines himself as a Libertarian, and that his stance on marriage equality is "a part of the libertarian idea: Leave everybody alone!"

He then went on to note, "The condition of society right now, with the high unemployment rates and the tremendous debt we're increasing and the government spending, we'd think there'd be [many more worthy issues] to think about [rather] that worrying about gay marriage."

As far as being Libertarian is concerned, Eastwood explained, "You're socially liberal, leave everybody alone, but you believe in fiscal responsibility and you believe in government staying out of your life." He also took time out to talk about the "Obama chair speech" controversy, quipping, "The Democrats who were watching thought I was going senile, and the Republicans knew I was."

It wasn't Eastwood's first time discussing same-sex marriage. While promoting "J. Edgar" in 2011, Eastwood told GQ magazine, "I don’t give a f**k about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of...Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.""

September 19, 2012 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When Bush left office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month at an accelerating pace. Obama's stimulus stopped the freefall, the stock market has recovered and we have gained over 4 million new jobs."

WHEEEEE!!!!

trouble for you is that Bush was President for eight and except for the last three months, everyone who wanted a job had one

that situation has never existed while Obama has been President and no one with any knowledge expects it ever will be while he's President

"Bikini Graph time! Unemployment rate down to 8.1% — lowest since President Obama took office"

please, Barry

use this statement in your commercials

"Washington (CNN) - New poll numbers out Wednesday from three key battleground states underscore the danger of that leaked fundraising video for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

According to fresh New York Times/CBS News/Quinnipiac polling, majorities of likely voters in Wisconsin, Virginia and Colorado say that Romney's policies favor the rich."

Wisconsin and Colorado are not really "key"

"Romney is a rich plutocrat who is of touch with the concerns of regular people."

Obama is a one-percenter that spends a considerable amount of time pallin' around with one-percenters

"What in the world do you mean to imply by this? That proximity to the U.S. has led to the growth of Canadian cities?"

you're quick, Robo!

"WASHINGTON -- Speaking at a glitzy fundraiser in Manhattan last night, President Barack Obama asked guests to help out his campaign against Republican nominee Mitt Romney by giving $10 million to outside efforts to help him retain the White House.

"We don't need to match these folks dollar for dollar. We can't. I mean, if somebody here has a $10 million check -- I can’t solicit it from you, but feel free to use it wisely," Obama winked to the room full of guests. The transcript of the event notes that guests laughed both after he mentioned the $10 million check and at the conclusion of his sentence.

The comments are notable because candidates and government officials are prohibited from soliciting checks for super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions."

"Mitt Romney's presidential bid has been gleefully portrayed as doomed after a series of supposed stumbles that have delighted Democrats.

Voters, however, apparently view things rather differently.
Romney has closed to just one point behind Barack Obama - a drop of six percentage points in a week for the President, according to the latest Gallup tracking poll released on Tuesday. Obama is now on 47 points and Romney 46.

The poll, and another by Rasmussen that putting Romney two points ahead, strongly indicate that Obama's Democratic convention 'bounce' has evaporated and the 2012 race is wide open."

Last week, Romney's comments about the Obama administration having 'apologised' to those who attacked the U.S. missions in Cairo and Benghazi were panned by the press and Democrats as crass and ill-judged given that four American officials had just been killed in Libya.

With unemployment still at over eight per cent, however, and the August jobs report showing that just 96,000 jobs were added while 368,000 stopped looking for work, the economy remains the number one issue and on that Romney holds some significant advantages.

Senior Romney strategists remain insistent that their man is well placed to be the victor in November - and have independent polling evidence to back up their assertion."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205171/Gallup-poll-shows-Mitt-Romney-CLOSING-just-point-Barack-Obama.html#ixzz26xRNBKqj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

September 19, 2012 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And today Rasmussen joins all the other polls showing Romney's campaign failure to attract voters.

"Thursday, September 20, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided...."


Every poll included in the RCP average of polls today has Obama ahead by 3.3 points. It looks like Obama's post convention "bump" is back.

September 20, 2012 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney has been defending his remarks on the 47 percent all day. Harry Reid, on the other hand, thinks there may be a bigger issue at hand:

“For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who have paid no federal income taxes,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

September 20, 2012 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And today Rasmussen joins all the other polls showing Romney's campaign failure to attract voters."

being behind by a point or two, in polls with a three percent margian of error, is a failure to attract voters?

did you know that, on average, in elections since WWII, that the challenger gained 6 points running against an incumbent President between the point two weeks after the incumbent's convention and the election?

Obama could make history and break this threshhold, but does this seem like his lucky year?

well, does it, punk?

"Thursday, September 20, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided....""

thought you said Rasmussen had a plot to make Romney look like the winner until right before election day

looks like you were wrong again

"Every poll included in the RCP average of polls today has Obama ahead by 3.3 points. It looks like Obama's post convention "bump" is back."

this is a misstatement

not every poll has 3.3 points

the most recent have Obama leads of 1, 1 and 2

all less than the margin of error

"Mitt Romney has been defending his remarks on the 47 percent all day."

his defense seems to have worked

there is no sign voter have turned against him

"Harry Reid, on the other hand, thinks there may be a bigger issue at hand:"

Harry Reid doesn't, technically, think

he just talks

if Mitt Romney weren't running for office, Reid would likely be sued

"“For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who have paid no federal income taxes,” Reid said on the Senate floor."

for all we know, Reid may too

Romney released his most recently filed return showing he paid federal income tax

Reid has released no tax returns of his

the public needs to see them to determine what kind of hypocrite we're dealing with here

September 20, 2012 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent point, somebody should get Romney an "I'm the 47%" t-shirt!!!

September 20, 2012 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Oooomph said...

"Obama could make history and break this threshhold, but does this seem like his lucky year?

well, does it, punk?"


Who you calling "punk?"

Read the numbers and weep.

" Gallup polling shows that the bump Obama got from the Democratic convention two weeks ago has subsided. And another new poll, released Wednesday by the Associated Press and pollster GfK, shows basically the same picture, with 47 percent of likely voters supporting Obama and 46 percent backing Romney — a tie ballgame nationally.

But almost every state-specific poll in the last few days has shown progress for Democrats — both at the presidential level and in the very important contest for the Senate — with some showing unprecedented leads for the blue side in the the most important states.

Swing-state polls from CBS News, the New York Times and Quinnipiac University released Wednesday morning in three key states — Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin — showed Obama either gaining since last month or, in the case of Virginia, holding his lead.

And Fox News polls released Wednesday evening showed Obama with a solid lead in the three biggest swing states; he’s up by seven points each in Ohio and Virginia and five points in Florida. The results confirm polls from NBC News and Marist College in the same three states last week.

A Washington Post poll released Tuesday confirms the movement in Virginia, with Obama up by an unprecedented eight points. And a Marquette University Law School poll released Wednesday supports the idea that the race in Wisconsin has shifted, with Obama leading by an astounding 14 points.

Even if some of these margins seem a little big, just consider that even the best polls for Romney haven’t shown him with that kind of lead in these states — or really anything close to it. In fact, Nate Silver points out that, of the 16 live-interview swing state polls conducted in the last two weeks, Obama is leading in all of them except Colorado by at least four points.

Prior to this week, it was rare that polls showed Obama leading by five points or more in any swing state; in those 16 states, he leads by an average of 5.8 points."

September 20, 2012 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

does it occur to anyone that there is something wrong with voting to raise someone else's taxes?

of course, everyone favors raising taxes on someone else

why wouldn't they?

it doesn't cost them anything

we should have a constitutional amendment that says all tax increases have to be shared by all registered voters

otherwise, what's to stop the majority from voting to confiscate someone else's assets and using it for themselves?

while Romney exaggerates, his basic point is correct

the majority should be prevented from taking the assets of the minority and using it for their own purposes

and, yes, that is a significant portion of Obama's support

September 20, 2012 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Who you calling "punk?""

that would be you and your ilk

you're a real legend in your own mind

go ahead and call Obama's one-point lead a sure blow-out

make my day!

September 20, 2012 10:52 AM  
Anonymous go ahead and make my day, Barry said...

here's how Obama's taking care of the 99%:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans will face a tax under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are significantly higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed.

In his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the tax would be less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Average tax: about $1,200.

"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.


Starting in 2014, virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to buy health insurance or face a tax.

A spokeswoman for the Obama administration said that those taxed should face up to their civic responsibilities.

The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The tax will be collected by the IRS, just like other taxes."

September 20, 2012 12:32 PM  
Anonymous No more free riders said...

"virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to buy health insurance or face a tax."

Well that sure beats the rest of us paying for emergency room visits by **irresponsible** people who refuse to buy health insurance yet feel **entitled** to free health care.

Just ask Mitt how they did it in Massachusetts. Oh here, CNN asked him for you:

Romney's health care mandate included tax penalty

"...As it turns out the tax penalty in the president's health care law was modeled after the reform plan passed in Massachusetts under then governor Mitt Romney.

In a 2009 interview with CNN, Romney explained how the Massachusetts health care mandate worked. If the state's residents decided to forgo health insurance when they could afford it, Romney said they would face the loss of a tax exemption. In other words, they would be assessed a tax.

"There are a number of ways to encourage people to get insurance and what we did, we said 'you're going to lose a tax exemption if you don't have insurance,'" Romney told CNN in the interview.

The former Massachusetts governor said the mandate was necessary to achieve universal coverage in the state.

In order to qualify for the tax exemption, Romney added "...you gotta have health insurance because we want everybody in the system. No more free riders.""

September 20, 2012 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama made a promise and broke it

Romney didn't

see the difference?

people that go to emergency rooms are billed

if they pay, fine

if they don't, why do you think they'll pay a tax?

only innocent middle class will suffer from Obama's LIES

September 20, 2012 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I do see a difference, a couple of big ones in fact.

Here's one:

Romney is too afraid to make any statement that he doesn't reverse a day later, or later the same day, multiple times even, such as:

"...Sunday morning on NBC, Mitt Romney said that while he wants to repeal Health Care Reform, he would leave the provisions in place that ban insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and that require insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans.

Hooray! A moment of humanity from the ice princess!

Not so fast. As soon as Mitt's conservative overlords got wind of it, Romney did a quick 180, and now is against helping people with pre-existing conditions, and with children aged 26 and under.

Let me be more precise. Mitt Romney is now saying that if he's elected president he will take away health care from 6.6 million children that are now on their parents' health insurance plans, and he will once again let insurance companies turn away people with "pre-existing conditions" as benign as psoriasis, high cholesterol and asthma.

In reference to how Romney would deal with those with preexisting conditions and young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.”

Then, suddenly, last night the Romney campaign amended their amended statement in an effort to suggest that they would in fact preserve the non-discrimination language concerning pre-existing conditions. Hurray!

But not so fast, a re-read of the new statement makes clear that in fact Romney won't be preserving the pre-existing conditions protections that are in Health Care Reform. Romney simply wanted you to think he was going to preserve it, but he really isn't.

So now he's not simply spineless, he's also duplicitous.

When you're worth a minimum of a quarter of a billion dollars it's of little consequence to you that more than six million children will lose their health insurance because of your incessant pandering to the far right.

But just as serious, this is all the more evidence that Mitt Romney simply believes in nothing. He will be whatever the highest bidder wants him to be. And that doesn't bode well for the rest of us not worth a quarter of a billion dollars."


And look who can't be specific about their tax plans? Why it's Mr. Ryan himself who says voters can not know the details of their tax plan, like what deductions will be eliminated and which loopholes will be closed, because they haven't come up with any yet.

Ryan said, "We want to wait until we can work with Congress to flesh out tax plan details."

Flip-flopping and not specifying the tax changes they'd like to make **before** the election is about as far from demonstrating leadership as the GOP can get.

No wonder the RR poll numbers are slipping into the abyss after their great big convention bump pushing them into the lead failed to materialize.

September 20, 2012 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Abandon ship! said...

Tim Pawlenty Becomes Bank Lobbyist, Steps Down As Mitt Romney's National Co-Chair

September 20, 2012 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Sunday morning on NBC, Mitt Romney said that while he wants to repeal Health Care Reform, he would leave the provisions in place that ban insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and that require insurance companies to cover children up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans.

Mitt Romney is now saying that if he's elected president he will take away health care from 6.6 million children that are now on their parents' health insurance plans, and he will once again let insurance companies turn away people with "pre-existing conditions"."

hate to break the news to you but most insurance companies announced they would keep both of those features even if Obamacare is repealed

now that they know they won't be sued for anti-trust collusion, they are all agreeing to do this and charge whatever it takes

why wouldn't they?

"this is all the more evidence that Mitt Romney simply believes in nothing."

yes, well, the problem with Obama is kinda of the same problem with Hitler

he believes in something

in Obama's case, he believes in the socialism and decline of America

his goal is to manage this decline smoothly

"He will be whatever the highest bidder wants him to be. And that doesn't bode well for the rest of us not worth a quarter of a billion dollars."

not a big Romney fan myself so your little digs at the weirdo mean little to me but there are only two feasible alternatives and Obama, clearly, does not wish us well

"And look who can't be specific about their tax plans? Why it's Mr. Ryan himself who says voters can not know the details of their tax plan, like what deductions will be eliminated and which loopholes will be closed, because they haven't come up with any yet."

the position of the Republican team is that marginal tax rates should be reduced and deductions reduced to produce revenue neutrality

as far as to which deductions, their position is that they don't care as long revenue neutrality is maintained within each social strata

I think their position in inarguably correct

"Flip-flopping"

on irrelevant issues

so what?

"and not specifying the tax changes they'd like to make"

they told you what they want to change and what they are flexible about

sounds like they'll be a lot less divisive than our current Dear Leader

"No wonder the RR poll numbers are slipping into the abyss"

uh, Obama lead by seven on 9/11/12 and leads by one now

how exactly is RR slipping into the abyss?

maybe is slipping in surveys of cable news anchors

September 20, 2012 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mitt Romney is now saying that if he's elected president he will take away health care from 6.6 million children that are now on their parents' health insurance plans"

actually, the President doesn't insure them and can't take that away

even if insurance were allowed to, it's doubtful they would cut this benefit

they'll just charge whatever it costs

and a profit

btw, in most societies, people aged between 21 and 26 are not referred to as "children"

extended adolescence is an American phenomnenom given a big boost by Obama's economic policies

keeping them on their parents' insurance is popular now because, unlike during Bush's Presidency, most college graduates can't find a job and wind up living with their parents for an indefinite time, waiting for a new Presdient to be elected and restore economic opportunity in America

let's hope they don't have to wait four more years

September 20, 2012 6:30 PM  
Anonymous celebrateur said...

the renowned Gallup poll, of legendary status, has bad news for TTFers today

Obama's lead, seven points on September 11, has now disappeared as Americans have tired of Obama apologizing to Arabs and coddling the 47%

here is the Gallup numbers from 9/11 on:

11- seven point lead
12- six point lead
13- five point lead
14- four point lead
15- three point lead
16- two point lead
17- one point lead
18- half point lead
19- we're all tied up

I'm sensing a pattern here

the Obama campaign is in free-fall

there's no floor

get used to President Romney

ha-ha, get used to it, baby!!

September 20, 2012 7:30 PM  
Anonymous the joker said...

yeah, that Mitt Romney is really slipping into the abyss

or maybe TTFers have their ups and downs mixed-up

maybe they'll think about it

when they're not sitting around the house, getting high and watching the tube

and telling Barry O to rob someone's castle

so the 47% can take the money and run

September 20, 2012 7:36 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"Chaplains Detail Problems in Military Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal"

Ah, yes, lifted verbatim from Focus on the Family’s completely unbiased news magazine, Citizenlink:

CL: “This is the anniversary of the Department of Defense using our military to promote a very radical social agenda,” said Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It’s not a time to celebrate. It’s a time to mourn.”

There’s a difference between “religious liberty” and Christian supremacy -- anti-gay or otherwise.

CL: "…threats to our troops’ freedom are mounting."

Some of the negative consequences of the repeal, according to Chaplain Alliance, include:

--A male service member sexually harassing another male service member at an officer-training school [through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations]. The harassed service member reported the incident, but superiors took no action."


For the sake of context, and I’m not just getting this from the article, over the years I’ve learned that following is the norm:

CNN: “Service members who report being sexually assaulted by a commanding officer or military colleague do so at their own peril. They face ridicule, demotion, investigation that includes a review of their sexual history and even involuntary discharge.”

CL --A chaplain threatened with early retirement, then reassigned, because he expressed concerns about the repeal.

Now, really. Just because he “expressed concerns?”

CL: --Same-sex ceremonies have been held at military chapels — including one in Louisiana, where the state constitution defines marriage as one-man and one-woman.

What they “forget” to mention, is that same-sex ceremonies can and do take place on military bases in states where gay marriage is legal.

September 21, 2012 12:17 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Continuing...

CL: “Compounding the outrage, service members are not free to speak out about these matters,” Crews said. “This ensures that distrust in the ranks will increase and morale will decrease as the number of silenced victims grows.”

Yes, just like “speaking out” about how your fellow service members are niggers or kikes or wetbacks would “…ensure that distrust in the ranks will increase and morale will decrease…” So called “victims” like that shouldn’t just be silenced, they should be kicked out.

CL: “If passed, H.R. 3828 would protect members of the Armed Forces who hold religious or moral convictions concerning “the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality” from discrimination or punishment for beliefs.”

But service members are already protected from the “appropriate and inappropriate ‘expression’ of human sexuality.”

CNN: "If you serve in the U.S. military and you rape or sexually assault a fellow service member … you have an estimated 86.5% chance of keeping your crime a secret and a 92% chance of avoiding a court-martial.

These disturbing statistics illustrate … an ongoing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military that … amounted to 19,000 incidents just in 2010."


So I guess it all comes down to whether or not one’s deeply held religious beliefs view rape and sexual assault to be an “appropriate” or “inappropriate” expression of human sexuality” in need of protection.

CL: “The bill is awaiting action in both the House and the Senate.”

Clearly the bill is meant to encourage the expression of anti-gay bigotry as a means of drumming up support to re-enact DADT, and ultimately, to institute the banning any service member deemed to be gay.

It’s discriminatory, malicious, redundant, but most of all, anti-American.
________________
Here is the entire CARL article (PDF) that FOTF via Citizenlink quoted this tripe from. There’s a few in there that surprisingly didn’t make the list, and predictably, not one footnote to be found.

September 21, 2012 12:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home