Saturday, October 20, 2012

Gallaudet Wants Anti-Marriage Ads Removed

The story of the Gallaudet diversity officer who signed the petition against marriage equality is an instructive distraction. Question 6 is not about whether tolerance of diversity should be a qualification for a university's Chief Diversity Officer, and it certainly has nothing to do with infringing citizens' free speech. Question 6 is about the right of Maryland couples to marry and start a family. The Gallaudet issue is a personnel matter. It is worth talking about because it demonstrates several ways that the campaign can be drawn off track.

To summarize: Angela McCaskill, the Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University, was put on leave after university officials learned she had signed a petition calling for a referendum in Maryland to overturn legislation providing equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. Naturally the anti-gay groups used her suspension as proof that the "gay agenda" is trying to take away everybody's freedom of speech. But of course, her job is to protect diversity, to support the special needs of minorities, and her petition signature revealed that she may be unqualified for that job.

The anti-gay Maryland Marriage Alliance is using her story in an ad opposing Question 6 on the Maryland ballot, and now she and Gallaudet University are asking them to stop.

Well of course it's embarrassing for a university to be used to promote prejudice and discrimination, and it is probably embarrassing for the Chief Diversity Officer to be paraded around as a poster child for bigotry. She should have thought about that before she signed the petition.

Her defense is absurd. She is trying to say now that she only signed the petition to put the question of same-sex marriage up for a vote, she was not actually saying she is against marriage equality.

The state's elected representatives had debated the issue of same-sex marriage, had fought over it, "evolved" in their personal opinions, had taken sides and switched sides, committees had fought over it and eventually it went through the process, like all new laws, and was adopted by majority votes. Then it went to the governor, who gladly signed the bill. This is how a representative democracy works. If you don't like it, vote for somebody different next time.

We don't vote on whether citizens should have rights. Angela McCaskill knows that.

Baltimore's CBS Local News has some new information.
There’s more fallout in the Gallaudet University controversy over the suspension of an administrator who signed the same-sex marriage petition.

Political reporter Pat Warren explains this time it’s over a campaign ad.

Dr. Angela McCaskill says signing the same-sex marriage petition does not mean she’s for or against same-sex marriage.

“No one has the right to decide what my signature meant,” McCaskill said at a news conference.

Gallaudet University suspended McCaskill, and this Maryland Marriage Alliance ad warns that it could happen to anyone:

“She’s not alone. When marriage has been redefined elsewhere, as Question 6 does, people who believe in traditional marriage have been punished.”

“That kind of threat is real,” said Derek McCoy, Maryland Marriage Alliance. Gay Marriage Opponents Have No Plans To Pull Ad Featuring Gallaudet Official
The story says that Gallaudet is meeting with legal counsel to see about having the ad pulled, or at least the parts that are copyrighted by them. The anti-gay group is continuing to run the ad and has no plan to remove it.
McCaskill’s attorney says his client would like the ad to stop running as well.

“She has been neutral. She has not opined one way or another. The marriage alliance folks have taken a position for her. Well, that’s the same thing Gallaudet did on the other side of the spectrum,” her attorney Wyndal Gordon said.
That would be -- thank you, Joe Biden -- malarkey.

Signing the petition calling for a referendum is taking sides. The bill was passed, it would go into law, it doesn't need the certification of a public vote any more than any other law does. You call for a referendum in order to interrupt the ordinary course of events, to block the bill before it becomes law.

It is weird how this reporter inserts their own opinion here, accepting the malarkey at face value.
If McCaskill’s case influences the same-sex marriage debate, it’s certainly an unintended consequence on her part. Whether same -ex couples get married here next year is up to the voters.

The Maryland Marriage Alliance and Marylanders for Marriage Equality have both called for Dr. McCaskill’s reinstatement.
First of all, McCaskill's intentions are made clear by her actions, not by her words. She signed the petition to challenge the law. You don't do that if you think the law is okay.

Second, the reason Marylanders for Marriage Equality want her reinstated is because this can be made to look like something it is not. The Chief Diversity Officer opposes diversity, and the university suspends her, what is the problem there? It is a problem of how it can be made to appear. This event can be twisted to frighten people into believing that they can't express their opinions about LGBT issues, that their freedom of speech will be endangered if gay and lesbian people are allowed to marry the person they love.

Marriage equality is a real issue, it isn't about appearances, there is substance to be discussed. Have gay and lesbian citizens in the state of Maryland gained enough respect from their neighbors to be accepted and allowed to live a normal life like everyone else, with a spouse and a family and the rights and consequences that go with that? Or will their loving relationships be treated as trivial, unimportant, unreal? That is a the question that will be put before the voters in a few weeks.

The assertion that anybody's freedom of speech will be taken away is malarkey.

The Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet signed a petition to allow Maryland voters to overthrow a law giving equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. Her support of the anti-gay cause is a direct indicator that she is not qualified to advise the university on diversity issues. Her suspension does not shed any light on the actual question of whether state voters should vote Yes for Question 6, supporting the rights of our gay and lesbian friends, relatives, and neighbors to marry and have families like everybody else.


Anonymous Bose in St. Peter MN said...

It also appears likely that Dr. McCaskill has stonewalled the University's attempts to resolve things meaningfully and quickly.

It was after Gallaudet had released a public statement that it was looking forward to meeting with her that she held the press conference. So, the University felt the need to press publicly for her to set a time to meet with them.

But, in her press conference, a couple of her colleagues were called "extremists", and it was claimed that great harm had been done by being put on fully paid leave.

Officers of any organization are expected to work calmly and professionally at conflict resolution, careful to protect the good name and reputation of the org. Demanding payment of financial damages publicly, before making any overtures to the president or board of trustees, is the opposite.

McCaskill is poised to prove herself unfit to serve as an officer of any organization, if she hasn't already.

October 20, 2012 9:28 PM  
Anonymous when we party, we party hardy said...

let's see the last five national polls of likely voters listed on RCP:

1. the most renowned and experienced polling organization, Gallup, which polls the largest number and includes voters with only cellphones, has Romney leading by seven

2. the only polling organization to call the 2008 Presidential correctly has Romney winning by two

3. Poltico, the hottest well-regarded pollster, has Romeny leading by two

4. old creaky NBC, with the smallest sample size of the five, has the race all tied up

5. the outlier is little-known IBD, with the second smallest sample size, has Obama zooming to victory up six points

no wonder Romney spent yesterday playing football on the beach and Obama was sequestered at Camp David, being grilled on foreign policy

one is relaxed and confident, the other senses impending defeat, which will set back liberalism by decades

October 22, 2012 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the Monmouth/Survey USA has reported in that they find a three point lead for Romney nationally

now, as the latest five polls in RCP, now has Obama in the lead

it's pretty obvious that all the liberal polls are adjusting their findings as we get closer to the election so no one will catch on that Obama never had a lead to begin with and they were manipulating the polls

October 22, 2012 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Obama bombed said...

it's great to see that we're getting no more annoying comments from socialist lands north of the border

the impending judgement of the citizens in the home of the free and the land of the brave has shut her up

Barack Obama has an appointment with destiny in a couple of weeks, which has determined that his futile Presidency will end and he will be enshrined forever as our single worst President

October 22, 2012 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Survey Ranks Obama 15th Best President, Bush Among Worst

Former President George W. Bush is in the bottom 5

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt

2. Theodore Roosevelt

3. Abraham Lincoln

4. George Washington

5. Thomas Jefferson

6. James Madison

7. James Monroe

8. Woodrow Wilson

9. Harry Truman

10. Dwight D. Eisenhower

11. John F. Kennedy

12. James K. Polk

13. William Clinton

14. Andrew Jackson

15. Barack Obama

16. Lyndon B. Johnson

17. John Adams

18. Ronald Reagan

19. John Quincy Adams

20. Grover Cleveland

21. William McKinley

22. George H. W. Bush

23. Martin Van Buren

24. William Howard Taft

25. Chester Arthur

26. Ulysses S. Grant

27. James Garfield

28. Gerald Ford

29. Calvin Coolidge

30. Richard Nixon

31. Rutherford B. Hayes

32. James Carter

33. Zachary Taylor

34. Benjamin Harrison

35. William Henry Harrison

36. Herbert Hoover

37. John Tyler

38. Millard Fillmore

39. George W. Bush

40. Franklin Pierce

41. Warren G. Harding

42. James Buchanan

43. Andrew Johnson

There are only 43 ranking slots since Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president; he left the White House only to return four years later for his second term.

October 23, 2012 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glenn Beck@glennbeck

"I am glad to know that mitt agrees with Obama so much. No, really. Why vote?"

October 23, 2012 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

because the election is not about foreign policy

Obama actually agreed with Bush quite a bit

the differences are mostly in the execution

Obama, for example, wanted to keep troops in Iraq but couldn't negotiate a status of forces agreement

everyone remembers that so Obama's deceit last night was exposed to the world

Romney wants to project American power, Obama wants to manage its decline

Obama wants to cut defense drastically- and claims it's what the military wants

then, he claims Romney's responsible desire to not cut is actually an "increase"

just like keeping taxes as they have been for the last dozen years is a "tax cut for the wealthy"

and passing taxes is "asking the rich to pay a little more"

if one is "asked", they can decline

Obama has opened new vistas in the game of vocabulary manipulation

he thinks it's 1984 and he's Big Brother

he's in for a surprise

October 23, 2012 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Presidential debate: Romney endorses Obama

"A viewer who hadn't tuned into the campaign between Romney and Obama before Monday night's debate might have wondered what all the shouting was about.

October 23, 2012
Monday's presidential debate, the third and last between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney, featured a forceful and articulate defense of Obama's foreign policy. That was no surprise. What was surprising was that it came from Romney.

That seemed to annoy the president — who was prepared to rebut his opponent's previous, more bellicose pronouncements. But the ever-shifting Republican nominee tacked even closer to the moderate middle than he did in the debate devoted to economic policy.

Once Romney intimated that he might keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan past NATO's 2014 deadline. No more. Now he agrees with Obama that it is feasible to transfer combat responsibilities to the Afghans by that point. On Iran, Romney emphasized economic sanctions rather than the threat of a military attack, effectively endorsing Obama's approach. On Syria, Romney disappointed some of his neoconservative supporters by forswearing direct U.S. military intervention or the establishment of a no-fly zone. There was no call for returning U.S. forces to Iraq, though Romney continued to accuse Obama of bungling negotiations aimed at keeping a small residual force there.

Yes, there were nuances of difference. Obama says the U.S. won't allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, while Romney continued to describe the red line as "nuclear capability." And Romney didn't discard his more sweeping indictments of Obama's foreign policy. He dusted off his canard that the president had conducted an "apology tour" through the Middle East. To be clear: Obama has not apologized for American influence; every time Romney says otherwise, he reinforces the many reasons to distrust his honesty.

Even Romney's rhetoric was less blustery in the debate than it has been on the campaign trail. A viewer who hadn't tuned into the campaign before Monday night might have wondered what all the shouting was about. Both candidates support withdrawal from Afghanistan, a careful courtship of Syrian opposition forces, the continued targeting of suspected terrorists by drones, and the leveraging of military aid to induce Egypt and other nations where Islamists are ascendant to respect the rights of women and religious minorities. Both want to engage China in trade, but press it to play fair.

If Romney believes in a thoughtful and centrist foreign policy, which he hadn't until Monday night, it would argue for his candidacy. But if that vision is attractive — and it is — why not stick with the president who is already pursuing it?"

October 23, 2012 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's partly because of execution

the Obama administration coems around to the right policy and Obama fortunately flip-flopped away from the irresponsible positions he advocated in his 2008 campaign but he performance has been inept

but more importantly, one needs to vote for Romney to halt the ride to socialism that Obama is taking the country on

the economic results have already been a disaster and Obama wants to double down for a second term

Winston Churchill:

"trying to tax your way to prosperity is like trying to pull yourself up by pulling on the handle of the bucket you're standing in"

October 23, 2012 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- President Barack Obama's "horses and bayonets" zinger, shooting down Mitt Romney's concerns about the state of the Navy, may have drawn reproach from Republicans, who called it "petty" and "belittling." But at least one former Navy secretary told The Huffington Post after Monday night's foreign policy debate that Obama was right on the mark.

"I thought the president's line was terrific," said Richard Danzig, who served as secretary of the Navy for two years under President Bill Clinton. "You don't measure efficacy by the number of ships. You measure it by your firepower, by the character of your people, the character of your equipment."

During the Boca Raton debate, Romney repeated his campaign call to build new ships for the Navy and accused Obama of allowing the number of ships to drop to its lowest point since 1917.

"I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works," Obama replied. "Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater -- nuclear submarines."

Danzig, who was himself in Boca Raton as a campaign surrogate for the president, said that he wishes Obama had said more, namely that Romney's claim was also incorrect.

"The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

"The Navy is stronger than it's ever been," he added.

The independent fact-checking site Politifact has ranked Romney's claim that the Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 as a "pants on fire" falsehood.

Politifact aded "Romney’s glib suggestion that today’s military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous."

October 23, 2012 4:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"President Barack Obama's "horses and bayonets" zinger, shooting down Mitt Romney's concerns about the state of the Navy,"

you guys are unbelievable

first, you thought you had Romney with the Big Bird thing but it backfired on you

then, in the second debate, you tried to ridicule Romney for having resume's of women in "binders"

now, you think this inane comment of Obama is some major triumph

"But at least one former Navy secretary told The Huffington Post after Monday night's foreign policy debate that Obama was right on the mark"

at least?

he's the only one

he served as Clinton's Navy Secretary and is a "campaign surrogate" for Obama?

sounds like an objective voice,

yeah, right

"You don't measure efficacy by the number of ships. You measure it by your firepower, by the character of your people, the character of your equipment."

actually, this is a stupid statement

while, obviously, rowboats don't qualify, the number of modern ships matters greatly

"Romney repeated his campaign call to build new ships for the Navy and accused Obama of allowing the number of ships to drop to its lowest point since 1917"

not an accusation but a fact

""I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works," Obama replied. "Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."

right here, Obama lost any scant chance he had of carrying Virginia

and, probably the election

the idea that ships are as obsolete as horses in the early 21st century is belied by the fact that Obama is ordering hundreds

""The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one.""

really irrelevant

Bill Clinton cut spending, encouraging al quaeda but no one is blaming all Democrats

"The independent fact-checking site Politifact has ranked Romney's claim that the Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 as a "pants on fire" falsehood."

Politifact? As ironic as Teach the Facts

"Politifact aded "Romney’s glib suggestion that today’s military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous.""

it didn't say it was

he said Obama wants to cut the naval force to the same level as 1917

October 23, 2012 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look what the liberal Washington Post said just last week:

"DURING THE FIRST presidential debate, President Obama charged that Mitt Romney had proposed “$2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for.” The truth is more complicated. Mr. Romney is proposing to fully fund the four-year plan laid out by the Defense Department, and Mr. Obama’s former defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, in 2010. Mr. Obama scrapped that scheme this year to cut $500 billion from the Pentagon.

Mr. Romney would restore that funding as well as an earlier round of cuts by Mr. Obama; he would also establish “a goal” of spending 4 percent of GDP annually on defense. In historical context, that’s not a big number: During the Cold War, defense spending averaged more than 6 percent of GDP.

Obam argues that defense spending is better measured by needs than by an arbitrary percentage. True enough; but then, Obama has been pressing its NATO partners for years to commit to just such a percentage. The point is to ensure that military preparedness is not sacrificed to fund more popular programs.

What would Mr. Romney’s added money buy? He says he would reverse the 100,000 cut in military personnel Mr. Obama is planning, which would take the Army and Marines back to where they were in 2001. He would increase Navy shipbuilding from nine to 15 vessels annually, and he would invest more in missile defense. James Jay Carafano, a defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calculates that by meeting the 4 percent target Mr. Romney could increase the Navy to the 346 ships recommended by a bipartisan, congressionally appointed panel that reviewed the Pentagon’s 2010 plan — compared to 263 ships under Mr. Obama’s budget.

Mr. Obama’s cuts in personnel rest on the dubious assumption that there will be no need to fight land wars in the coming decade; while no one wishes for such wars, trends in the Middle East make that a risky bet. The shrinking Navy, in turn, is at odds with Mr. Obama’s strategy of building up forces in Asia as a hedge against a belligerent China. In all, Mr. Romney’s plan would better respond to U.S. strategic needs."

October 23, 2012 8:07 PM  
Anonymous leap year for the Romney Rocket said...

I know you guys are dismal enough but today's poll numbers are remarkable. Here's the new polls of likely voters nationally:

1. the most prestigious organization, which also surveys the most people, says Romney leads by 5

2. the current reigning champion, who famously called the 2008 Presidential election EXACTLY right, says Romney leads by 4

3. For the first time, a broadcast television network calls the election for Romney, by one point

4. the outlier again today is IBD, but even they say Obama's lead has shrunk from 6 down to 2

look guys, face it:

this just ain't your year!!

October 23, 2012 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A viewer who hadn't tuned into the campaign between Romney and Obama before Monday night's debate might have wondered what all the shouting was about."

tell all those Rip Van Winkles that Obama was shouting because he knows he is losing the race and he knows that's the only way to get attention

Romney sat there and cooly and civilly anunciated what he thinks the foreign policy of our country should be

probably not Obama's fault though

probably the same idiots who told Biden you win if you shout, told Obama the same thing

you could clearly see the visible frustration on Obama's face as he waited for Romney to say al lthe stuff he'd prepared for

Obama: bewitched, bothered and bewildered

"Talk about the sullen presage of a campaign’s decay. Something was wrong with President Obama last night, to judge by his performance. Was Ohio on his mind? An AP story says that the Obama campaign is now talking about a way to win without taking the state:

The vice president is midway through a three-day tour of uber-battleground Ohio, and Obama’s team contends it’s best way of ensuring victory is a win there. The campaign says internal polling gives Obama a lead in the Midwestern battleground state.

But even if Obama loses Ohio, his campaign sees another pathway to the presidency by nailing New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.

That the Obama camp is even talking about losing Ohio is a stunning turn of events.

No wonder, then, that Romney seemed like the man who was winning last night. When he spoke, you thought “energy in the executive.” When Obama spoke, the words that came to mind were “fatigue,” “apathy,” “frustration.” In his closing statement the president was clearly rattled, lamely reciting talking points we’ve heard too often before, not even pretending to care about what he was saying — simply wanting it to be over. It was as though a light had gone out. Was he disconcerted by the smoothness of Romney’s performance? Or is his campaign’s internal polling in Ohio less pretty than his people are letting on?"

btw, one result of the polls is that Obama has lost his likability edge

Romney now has a greater likability less unlikability rate than Obama

October 23, 2012 8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The same Washington Post editorial concluded: "Mr. Romney would have to find hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the 2010 Pentagon wish list, and much more for the 4 percent goal. Given his unwillingness to contemplate tax increases or other revenue measures, military spending is one more area where Mr. Romney’s math doesn’t add up."

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

October 23, 2012 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, the Post is a broken record calling for more taxes

they also say Obama's plan to not raise taxes on the middle class doesn't add up either

but the important point is that while Obama ridicules the need for sustained defense spending, even liberals institutions that care about protecting our freedoms know that Obama's proposed cut in military spending would expose our country to great risks

another of the million reasons he should be shown the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

October 23, 2012 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mr. Romney would have to find hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the 2010 Pentagon wish list,"

Obama keeps saying that the military doesn't want to stop his defense cuts

he's lying

October 23, 2012 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the smoking gun that shows Obama cannot be trusted to oversee our foreign affairs:

"WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with links to al Qaeda.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film."

lest anyone be confused and dismiss this as simply a harmless exercise in politics, it must be noted that the White House's willful deception renewed passions about the film, inflaming Muslims worldwide, resulting in riots, deaths and more attacks on our embassies

this is a serious scandal

October 24, 2012 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

today's good news for TTFers:

- latest poll of likely voters in Ohio shows it's all tied up

- ABC/Washington Post poll out today show Romney with a 12 point lead among independents concerning who can handle the economy better

with the passing of George McGovern this week, Obama wants to salute his memory by losing every state but Massachusetts

not an easy task but if anyone can do it, it's Sir Barry

October 24, 2012 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Democrats for Romney said...

October 24, 2012 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

two weeks from today, America will be sleeping in

the night before, the dancing in the streets went on til the wee hours

America had ended an error

everyone, from the sleaziest liberal to the most upstanding citizen will agree that happy days are here again!!

October 24, 2012 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

two weeks from today, America will be sleeping in

the night before, the dancing in the streets went on til the wee hours

America had ended an error

everyone, from the sleaziest liberal to the most upstanding citizen will agree that happy days are here again!!

October 24, 2012 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show...."

I'm sure there were a lot of rumors flying in the hours after the attack.

It is good that the White House did not act on that false report.

October 24, 2012 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the report was true

and they acted- to deceive the world

October 24, 2012 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it was true that some group took credit for it.

October 24, 2012 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they took credit and they did it

Obama admits it now and even let it slip that he knew the day after in the Rose Garden

October 24, 2012 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As CNN says, "It is common for one or more claims of responsibility to follow high-profile attacks on U.S. targets, and intelligence officials analyze them for validity before declaring any legitimate. For example, groups make false claims to seek publicity and raise their profile.

Analysts examine a group's history, whether it made previous claims that were legitimate, whether it has the capacity to carry out such an attack, and whether known members of the group participated in the attack in assessing the validity of claims of responsibility."

CNN also says that 2 hours after the attack, some government emails "identified Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.

The group denied responsibility the next day."

October 24, 2012 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are the latest polls from the battleground, updated through the day:

Nevada: Obama 50%, Romney 48% (Rasmussen)

New Hampshire: Romney 50%, Obama 48% (Rasmussen)

New Hampshire: Obama 48%, Romney 45% (Lake Research)

Ohio: Obama 47%, Romney 44% (SurveyUSA)

Ohio: Obama 48%, Romney 48% (Rasmussen)

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 43% (Old Dominion University)

Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (Newsmax/Zogby)

October 24, 2012 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you forgot Michigan:

Romney 47, Obama 47 (Baydoun/Foster)

October 24, 2012 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new poll this morning, AP:

Romney leads by 2

Rommey and Obama tied amng women, showing the "War on Women" tactic of Obama has failed

October 25, 2012 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It amazes me that anyone would want to vote on, much less vote against, someone else's right to form a family.

October 25, 2012 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what amazes me is that you think your capacity to do that is granted by a government

Robert, free yourself

October 25, 2012 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...


October 25, 2012 11:30 AM  
Anonymous let's make an assumption said...

"Some Democrats are apparently not waiting for Barack Obama to lose the presidential election before starting the inevitable recriminations about whose fault it was. Whether writing strictly on his own hook or as a result of conversations with campaign officials, New York Times political writer Matt Bai has fired the first shot in what will turn out to be a very nasty battle over who deserves the lion’s share of the blame for what is going to be a November disaster for the Democrats. That the Times would publish a piece on October 24 that takes as its starting point the assumption that the president will lose, and that blame for that loss needs to be allocated, is astonishing enough. But that their nominee for scapegoat is the man who is almost certainly the most popular living Democrat is the sort of thing that is not only shocking, but might be regarded as a foretaste of the coming battle to control the party in 2016.

Bai’s choice for the person who steered the president wrong this year is none other than former President Bill Clinton, who has widely been credited for having helped produce a post-convention boost for the Democrats. Clinton’s speech on behalf of Obama was viewed, with good reason, as being far more effective than anything the president or anyone else said on his behalf this year. But Bai points to Clinton as the primary advocate within high Democratic circles for changing the party’s strategy from one of bashing Mitt Romney as an inauthentic flip-flopper to one that centered on trying to assert that he was a conservative monster. Given that Romney demolished that false image in one smashing debate performance in Denver that seems to have changed the arc of the election, Clinton’s advice seems ripe for second-guessing right now.

But no matter where the Democratic fingers are pointing, the fact that they are already starting to blame each other for an Obama loss has to send chills down the spines of Democrats who are still operating under the assumption that Romney can’t win."

October 25, 2012 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that he would again endorse President Obama, breaking from the Republican Party to support the incumbent president.

"You know, I voted for him in 2008 and I plan to stick with him in 2012 and will vote for him and Vice President Joe Biden next month," Powell told CBS News. "So that's an endorsement for President Obama for reelection."

Powell went on to praise Obama for his handling of the economy and foreign policy. Powell said Obama had inherited "one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression" after taking office in 2009, following the presidency of his former boss — President George W. Bush.

"I saw over the next several years stabilization come back in the financial community, housing is now starting to pick up after four years, it's starting to pick up," Powell said. "Consumer confidence is rising. So I think generally we've come out of the dive and start[ed] to gain altitude."

Powell went on to praise Obama's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, essentially ending the conflict that began during Powell's tenure in the Bush administration.

"I think that the actions he's taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very solid," Powell said. "So I think we ought to keep on the track that we're on."

The former secretary of State said he had not spoken to either campaign about offering his endorsement, but had spoken with both candidates recently — although neither asked him for his backing.

"This is my decision based on my looking at it as a citizen," Powell said, adding he had "concerns" about Gov. Romney's economic and foreign policy plans, arguing Romney had provided a "moving target."

"One day he has a certain strong view about staying in Afghanistan but then on Monday night he agrees with the withdrawal. Same thing in Iraq," Powell said. "On every issue that was discussed on Monday night, Gov. Romney agreed with the president, with some nuances, but this is quite a different set of foreign policy views than he had earlier in the campaign."

The retired four-star general said he continued to consider himself a Republican, despite having now backed the Democratic presidential nominee for a second straight election.

"I think I'm a Republican of a more moderate mold and that's something of a dying breed, I'm sorry to say," Powell said. "But, you know, the Republicans I work for are President Reagan, President Bush 41, [the] Howard Bakers of the world, people who were conservative, people who were willing to push their conservative views but people who recognized at the end of the day you [had] to find a basis for compromise."

The Obama campaign said Thursday that they had not been told in advance the Powell's endorsement was coming, but that they were "very excited" for his support.

“We think it sends a strong signal about why he should be sent back for another four years to be commander in chief," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said aboard Air Force One."

October 25, 2012 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign /By MATT BAI

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

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

Dems Begin the Post-Obama Blame Game by Jonathan S. Tobin “the most right-wing editor of a Jewish weekly in the US.”

"If this idea takes hold - that O is going to lose - it might depress Democratic turnout enough"

Why do you think Jonathan wrote this article? LOL. Keep trying, fellas."

"And of course there are millions of people in swing states who check Tobin every morning before they even drink their coffee. You've discovered the nerve center of Conservative Journolist. Our secret is out. Game over, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not sure what your point is, but you did succeed in looking silly."

Oh, and BTW, Presidential Polls Counter Romney Surge Myth

"WASHINGTON -- New polls released on Wednesday and Thursday continue to show President Barack Obama holding narrow leads in a handful of critical battleground states, but running within a whisker of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney nationwide.

While Romney gained significantly in the wake of the first presidential debate in early October, the lack of a continuing trend over the past two weeks helps counter a theme in some campaign coverage that Romney's support continues to "surge" nationwide.

The most recent updates of the seven daily national tracking polls continue to split in terms of which candidate holds the nominal lead, ranging from a 4 percentage-point lead for Romney on the Rasmussen Reports automated tracking to a 3 point Obama advantage on the Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll...."

October 25, 2012 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


IBD is clearly an outlier

every other poll has Romney leading

right now,polls are tied in Ohio, Michigan,Iowa

tied polls have historically turned for the challenger on election day

we have ten days to go but if the election were today,Romney would win

it's a little hard to see anything stirring a surge to Obama

just the facts, now go teach 'em

October 25, 2012 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Less than 14 days before the vote, Gallup has Mitt Romney leading the president by three points and in Rasmussen he's up four. Yes, 270 Electoral College votes will decide the race, but with the whole nation watching the same events, one has to ask whether what we're seeing is Mitt Romney's rise or Barack Obama's decline.

It is conventional wisdom that incumbency breeds advantages. But incumbency also brings burdens, and the Obama candidacy looks like it's buckling beneath one: Of the two candidates, the president is held to a higher standard of behavior.

There have been only two events that could be said to have caused significant movement by voters in the campaign. One was the Oct. 3 Denver debate in which Mitt Romney disinterred political skills that stunned the incumbent and woke up a sleeping electorate. Race on.

The other is Benghazi. The damage done to the Obama campaign by the Sept. 11 death in Benghazi of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American colleagues has been more gradual than the sensation of the Denver debate, but its effect may have been deeper.

The incumbent president has a credibility gap.

The phenomenon of a credibility gap dates to the Vietnam War and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The charge then was that LBJ wasn't leveling with the American people or Congress about Vietnam. The credibility gap was hardly the only thing that caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 election, but it eroded support for his presidency.

Credibility gaps generally involve difficult foreign affairs in which presidents possess information and realities never revealed to the general public, presumably for its own good. Only this White House knows why it allowed the Benghazi disaster to drip though the news from September into October, with no credible account of the attack, even as reporters got the story out.

In time it was no surprise that people began to ask: Was the White House hiding something about an event of enormous gravity to protect the president's candidacy? For much of the American electorate, that would be cause to start marking down a presidency.

Joe Biden didn't help in the Oct. 11 veep debate (a month after the event) when he off-loaded responsibility on the intelligence services. Days later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to take responsibility at a conference in Lima, Peru. That didn't still the doubts. Rather than hold a traditional press conference like presidents past, Mr. Obama on Oct. 18 talked at length on comedy TV to Jon Stewart, who asked the president to clear up discrepancies in the administration's account—"the perception that State was on a different page than you."

At this point, the answer hardly mattered. The discomfort over presidential credibility on Benghazi put the Obama candidacy in a six-week downdraft. Barring an October surprise, nothing similar is affecting the Romney campaign.

October 25, 2012 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even by the standards of our celebrified culture, Barack Obama's personalization of the American presidency has been outsized. He and his political team sought this aura. Hillary and the rest of the cabinet receded, while he rose. In Monday's debate, Mr. Obama stumbled into a summation of his status: "This nation, me, my administration." L'etat, c'est me.

Until now, it worked. Despite an awful economy, the president's likability numbers held firm. Many wanted to believe in this larger-than-life president. His clumsy handling of Benghazi, however, has opened a gap in the president's credibility. What else can explain Mitt Romney ascending in polls to equality with the president on foreign policy and terrorism before the last debate?

The discomfiture over Benghazi has spilled into other parts of his campaign. Among my top five events of the 2012 election will be that fellow in the town-hall debate who said, "I'm not that optimistic," and asked the president to address what he's doing about "everyday living" in America. He was asking the president he voted for why he should still believe. Mr. Obama diverted into telling him about ending Iraq and killing bin Laden. Instead of presidential assurance, he got talking points.

His weird, persistent vagueness about the shape of a second-term agenda has sown doubt about the economy going forward. Only now is that agenda being revealed, more or less, with a 20-page pamphlet, "The New Economic Patriotism." A new Obama ad urges viewers to "read it."

It may be that voters think both candidates have stretched the truth, but credibility is the coin of a presidency. The political cost of devaluing that coin is higher for an incumbent seeking a second term and higher still for this one. Two weeks from Election Day, Barack Obama has been shown in Benghazi to be a president with feet of clay. It may well take him down.

October 25, 2012 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"John Sununu is walking back his comment that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because they are both black.

Sununu, the former governor of New Hampshire and current campaign surrogate for Mitt Romney, told CNN’s Piers Morgan last night: ”Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder if that’s an endorsement based on issues, or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.”

When pressed, he elaborated: ”Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

After the interview, Sununu put out the following statement, via National Review Online:

“Colin Powell is a friend and I respect the endorsement decision he made and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the president’s policies. Piers Morgan’s question was whether Colin Powell should leave the party, and I don’t think he should.”

Sununu previously described Obama as “lazy and detached” after the first debate, and said at a different point: “I wish this president would learn how to be an American.” He also backtracked on those comments."

Try to imagine someone from the Obama campaign saying any Romney supporter who has served this nation's military only supports him because he's white.

October 26, 2012 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

imagine that

btw, why is it that most racial groups have diverse political views and yet blacks vote 97% Democratic despite the fact that Republicans favor policies, like school choice, that would actually improve the lives of most black children in America?

another btw, can anyone find an example of Powell endorsing any other candidate with views and positions similar to Obama's?

October 26, 2012 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Other than Romney in the third debate, there are no other presidential candidates with views and positions similar to Obama's.

Mitt morphed again!

October 26, 2012 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And again!

"Today, new government data showed that the economy grew by 2 percent last quarter, faster than the previous quarter, but still slower than desirable. It’s “reasonably good news” for the country and Obama, as Andrew Leonard wrote, though certainly not a home run.

But how did Mitt Romney respond? Predictably, by slamming the news. “Today, we received the latest round of discouraging economic news… This is what four years of President Obama’s policies have produced,” he said in a statement.

By the way, how fast did the economy grow when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts? According to data from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, average real GDP growth was 1.5 percent per year in Massachusetts from 2002 to 2006. For each of the years Romney was in office, the economy grew 1.49 percent, 1.86 percent, 1.14 percent, and 1.43 percent, respectively.

And how did Romney assess the economic growth of the state under his leadership? “When we took office, the state economy was in a tailspin. Today, jobs are being created by the thousands and our economy is stronger,” he said in early 2006, his last year in office. So less than two percent was good then, but 2 percent is bad now.

And one could argue that Romney had an easier task than Obama. During Romney’s tenure in the governor’s mansion, the national economy grew at a much fast clip than Massachusetts’, staying comfortably above 2 percent every year. National GDP even broke 3 percent one year and doubled Mass’s growth another year. On the campaign trail in 2002, Romney promised jobs creation “second to none in the history of the state.” After four years, the state had added 31,000 jobs — a growth rate of less than 1 percent while the country as a whole added five percent more jobs."

October 26, 2012 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2 percent is indeed bad

we have people out of work in America 2012

a lot of them

all because of Obama

at the time, MAssachuSetts had no unemployment to speak of

but, enough

Romney will be President-elect in two weeks

and Barry will be looking on Craigslist for a job

it's all over now

but the cryin'

October 26, 2012 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not according to the Donald's big fat October surprise belly flop. It won't be over until Halloween at 5 PM, when according to reports, his big orange head will be working as a jack-o-latern.

h/t Stephen Colbert

October 26, 2012 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, it is according to the facts

one thing that makes it a lock is that all the liberals are in denial

if they realized they were behind, they might have a chance

October 26, 2012 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In a radio interview on Friday, President Barack Obama responded to remarks by former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, a top adviser to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who suggested former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed him because of his race.

"I'll let General Powell's statements stand for themselves," Obama told Michael Smerconish, the Philadelphia-based radio host. "He spoke about the fact that my foreign policy during a very difficult time had been steady and strong. He talked about, with respect to our economy, that we had helped to rescue America from a potential Great Depression and that we were moving in the right direction. I don't think that there are many people in America who would question General Powell's credibility, his patriotism, his willingness to tell it straight, and so any suggestion that General Powell would make such a profound statement in such an important election based on anything but what he thought was what's going to be best for America doesn't make much sense.""

October 26, 2012 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sununu just voiced what many people, of whatever race, thought

Powell has always endorsed Republicans, until Obama

Obama record is ridiculous

btw, Romney is now starting to play with Obama, jerking his chain

first, he came to the debate Tuesday all calm while Obama was prepped with all sorts of zingers ready to fight off Romney's attacks

instead, Romney just sat there with a serene smile on his face while Obama raged

then, today Romney starts buying time in MN, a state thought safe for Obama

within a few hours, Obama's buying time there too

October 26, 2012 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a thought:

what if the Frankenstorm hits NYC so hard that it goes off the grid for a week and voter turnout is supressed and the rural counties go for Romney and Romney takes NY


ridiculous, right?

how about NJ and Philadelphia?

now we're talking

just saying...

October 26, 2012 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Mitt will win if millions of voters can be kept from voting. That's been the GOP's push of late.

Enjoy Mitt's latest lie to happy Ohioans employed by the auto industry saved by Obama's leadership:

"OCTOBER 26, 2012
Washington — Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told a rally in northern Ohio on Thursday night that Chrysler was considering moving production of its Jeep vehicles to China, apparently reacting to incorrect reports circulating online.

"I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China," Romney said at a rally in Defiance, Ohio, home to a General Motors powertrain plant. "I will fight for every good job in America. I'm going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if it's fair America will win."

Romney was apparently responding to reports Thursday on right-leaning blogs that misinterpreted a recent Bloomberg News story earlier this week that said Chrysler, owned by Italian automaker Fiat SpA, is thinking of building Jeeps in China for sale in the Chinese market.

The Bloomberg story, though accurate, "has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri said.

"Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation."

The Bloomberg story, however, sparked the confusion in the first paragraph of the story, saying Chrysler planned to return Jeep output to China "and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

But the reporter included Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia, later in the story referring to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China.

A Romney representative didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment on his remarks.

["Woops, we didn't read that far."]

The $85 billion bailout has emerged as a top issue in the final days of the presidential campaign with both camps trying to win Ohio, which is home to more than 75,000 auto sector jobs.

The President Barack Obama's campaign seized on the comments. Obama spokesman Danny Kanner tweeted: "Romney shamefully tried to scare voters tonight into thinking Jeep production moving to China. False."

Campaign spokesman Matt McGrath called Romney's comments "blatantly false."

"At an event in Defiance, Ohio tonight, Mitt Romney shamelessly tried to scare voters into thinking Jeep was moving to China and taking American jobs with it," he said. "That is blatantly false, and speaks to how Romney will say absolutely anything to win votes.

"The truth is that Chrysler is not moving its Jeep production from America to China. As Chrysler said today, 'Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China.' And what's more: President Obama has fought on behalf of U.S. auto workers by challenging unfair Chinese tariffs on U.S. auto exports to China, including Jeeps, while Romney would have let the American auto industry and a million jobs go under."

October 27, 2012 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There's Nothing We Can't Do" and we sure don't mind the rain!

October 27, 2012 7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the lies Obama has pushed about the GM bailout are so horrendous that Dave Letterman, who has been as active an advocate for Obama as Chris Matthews, complained to Rachel Maddow this week about it and she, apologizing for Barry as always, said "well, he should have stated his case with more nuance" and Letterman said "we expect our President to tell the truth"

which is this:

GM went bankrupt.

Mitt Romney favored having the usual procedures followed where the courts supervise a reorganization and give them relief from some obligations.

Obama, as always believing he supersedes the law, wanted the White House to supervise the bankruptcy

GM would still be in business either way and still be a major employer in Michigan and Ohio

the difference:

Obama made sure the benefits union workers get, which greatly exceed that of most Americans and which make American cars uncompetitive, were preserved

sad thing is that GM's stock has not been holding up, taxpayers are likely to lose their tens of billions on their investments and some analysts are predicting another bailout will be necessary in the next few years

Mitt should be President then

nice propaganda about Jeep but it does sound like they are moving some production that now happens here to China

will Americans repeat the mistake they made with Nixon when the re-elected him in spite of Watergate?

here's a gun that keeps smoking

"The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack "are murderers of my son."

Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by news sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.

"They refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."

Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to "stand up."

Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.

Charles Woods said his son's action "does not surprise me."

"I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed," he said."

October 27, 2012 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice propaganda about Jeep but it does sound like they are moving some production that now happens here to China

Only to morons who cannot comprehend "the reporter included Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia, later in the story referring to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China"

October 27, 2012 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It is a dubious assertion that school choice will improve the lives of most African-American children in the country.

October 27, 2012 6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

only to members of teacher unions, Robert

even Arne Duncan and the Washington Post agreed

October 27, 2012 11:22 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

School choice schemes, especially in under-performing system, even if one assumes that charter and independent schools provide better service (an assertion that research does not support), only provide choice for students whose parents take the time and effort to access the offered programs. The majority (i.e. the "most" to whom you referred) of children in poverty do not utilize those programs, and are left in weakened, even more under-funded public schools. One can reasonably claim that "school choice" benefits some children, but not most.

I'll give you an example. The "No Child Left Behind Act" enables all students in schools in which a certain number of students do not pass the required tests to transfer to higher-performing schools. The research done on this indicates that the vast majority of students who do transfer are those that in fact passed the tests in the first place. The children at risk are left in schools with a greater number of such children, less diverse schools (in terms of academic success), and less-well-funded schools. This was predictable, and may well have been done so. It was a scam.

October 28, 2012 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Romney under fire for ad claim that Jeep brand moving to China

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is facing criticism for an ad his campaign in running in Ohio that repeats a disputed claim that Chrysler is moving production of its Jeep brand to China.

The ad, called “Who Will Do More,” is intended to counter Democratic attacks on Romney’s opposition to the $80 billion bailout that was given to Chrysler and General Motors in 2008 and 2009.

But the ad references a report that Chrysler is outsourcing its U.S. Jeep production, despite a statement from the company that it is considering opening a plant in China to build cars for Chinese consumers.

“Who will do more for the auto industry? Not Barack Obama,” the ad said. “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.”

Chrysler was sold to Italian automaker Fiat after the bailout in a deal that the Obama administration helped orchestrate. The company has denied it is moving production to China, saying last week that “it is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats” to conclude that it is planning to build U.S. Jeeps outside of the country.

"There are times when the reading of a newswire report generates storms originated by a biased or predisposed approach," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri wrote in a blog post.

"On Oct. 22, 2012, at 11:10 a.m. ET, the Bloomberg News report 'Fiat Says Jeep Output May Return to China as Demand Rises' stated 'Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio," Ranieri continued. "Manley (President and CEO of the Jeep brand) referred to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China."

President Obama has hammered Romney over an op-ed he wrote in the New York Times that was titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," and the auto bailout is widely thought to be buoying the president to a slim, but persistent lead in Ohio polls.

Democrats pounced on Romney’s ad Sunday, pointing to the previous Chrysler statement and calling the commercial untruthful.

“Romney has become THE definition of a desperate & deceptive candidate as he airs a completely false ad on Jeep moving to China #shameful,” former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who is a surrogate for President Obama, tweeted Sunday night.

Romney’s campaign declined to comment on the criticism of the commercial, pointing to the earlier Bloomberg report that is cited in the clip. "

October 29, 2012 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this was never going to happen remember ? pre-op trans using women's locker room, hanging out in the sauna naked with six year old girls...

now watch the trans sue the school for millions because someone complained.l

November 02, 2012 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This does not say that the person was "hanging out in the sauna naked with six year old girls."

The assertion was that male pedophiles and predators were going to lurk in women's showers and bathrooms. There is no evidence here that that has happened. Will transwomen shower and use the sauna? Perhaps, yes. It does not appear that any crime has been committed. If a girl sees a penis then perhaps the school needs to work something out with this person.

This story does not approach the "little girls turning up dead" that was predicted.

November 02, 2012 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this all the stupidest crap

if you have male sexual organs, that's where you belong

November 02, 2012 2:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home