Sunday, October 07, 2012

Preachers Defying the Law Today

This is a strange situation, more than a thousand preachers saying they are going to break the law today.

The preachers want to promote political campaigns from the pulpit and still continue to get a tax break. And it seems that the IRS is such a mess that they might get away with it.

From the Washington Post:
As part of “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” on Oct. 7, religious leaders across the country will endorse political candidates — an act that flies in the face of Internal Revenue Service rules about what tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, can and cannot do.

The IRS says tax-exempt organizations, or what they refer to as a 501(c)(3), are prohibited from participating in partisan campaigning for or against political candidates. Yet, despite what’s in the rules, the agency continues to struggle to do anything about those who defy the law.

Though the regulation has been in place since 1954, in 2009, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ruled the IRS no longer had the appropriate staff to investigate places of worship after a reorganization changed who in the agency had the authority to launch investigations.

New procedures for conducting church audits have been pending since 2009, which has left the IRS virtually impotent in conducting any kind of new investigations. The IRS did not respond to questions seeking comment. Pastors to challenge IRS over political endorsements, and they’re likely to get away with it
It doesn't say but I guess probably about half of them will promote Democrats and half will promote Republicans, don't you figure?

The US government doesn't have to make churches tax-exempt. They do that as a kind of courtesy or show of respect for religious institutions. If you want to worship a deity you can do it freely, as long as you don't endorse a political candidate or party.

That isn't much of a restriction. Since politicians make the laws, they can change them, and if you take advantage of their generosity to campaign against them they are not especially likely to help you out.

Despite the lack of manpower, organizations such as Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal ministry that first launched “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” in 2008, say they take the IRS restriction seriously — even as they disagree with it.

“Every pastor and every church has the right to decide what their pastor preaches from the pulpit and to not have that dictated to them by the IRS,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly the Alliance Defense Fund.

Jim Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, Calif., says the prohibition has caused religious leaders to shy away from speaking about what they see as theological truth, such as the belief that homosexuality is biblically unacceptable.
Well, there is nothing wrong with talking about homosexuality being unacceptable in a church, preachers do it all the time, it's legal and nobody cares if they talk that way.

And I agree, "Every pastor and every church has the right to decide what their pastor preaches from the pulpit and to not have that dictated to them by the IRS." All they have to do is render unto Caesar and they can say anything they want. But if they want the free money, if they want to keep a hundred percent of the dollar bills in the collection plate, they have to refrain from taking sides in a political campaign.

This arrangement seems ultimately fair to me. The churches get a special deal, but they have to keep their part of it. It should be easy, God never mentioned His preference for either party and you'd think his spokespersons on earth could follow that example.

I don't know how "Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2012" came out, but I do have a thought about it. Every church that participates in this should have their tax exempt status revoked. They can have the right to express themselves on political topics, and they can have the pleasure of paying taxes like everybody else, to help the country afford that right.

53 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

So religious institutions may be 501(c)(3) groups such as any other non-profit, or they may be partisan political groups; am I mistaken? If there's a religious exemption to this policy, who determines what is a religious group and what is not? The government should not be in the business of determining what sets of beliefs qualify as religion.

October 07, 2012 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert's right. Government has no place defining religion.

All 501(C)(3)'s should have free speech rights without the threat of extra taxation for certain kinds of speech

the IRS will lose this is they ever try to enforce it

October 07, 2012 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this morning, the rolling multi-day Gallup poll, the first to only include days since the debate, shows the race tied at 47% each

and that's among registered voters, which usually tilt towrd the Dems

October 08, 2012 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoy the bump.

Here's what Gallup says about it:

"Implications

The first presidential debate went decidedly in Romney's favor. The debate appears to have affected voters to some degree, given the narrowing of the race in the three days after the debate compared with the three days prior. Still, the impact was not so strong that it changed the race to the point where Romney emerged as the leader among registered voters. Rather, at least in the first three days of Gallup tracking after the debate, the race is tied.

But even that small movement is significant, given the competitiveness of the race throughout this presidential campaign year and the fact that debates rarely transform presidential election races.

However, the generally positive unemployment report released on Friday may serve to blunt some of Romney's post-debate momentum.

In any case, with a month to go before Election Day, the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is still very much in doubt. That certainly raises the stakes for both candidates in the next two debates, Oct. 16 in Hempstead, N.Y., and Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla."

October 08, 2012 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Still, the impact was not so strong that it changed the race to the point where Romney emerged as the leader among registered voters. Rather, at least in the first three days of Gallup tracking after the debate, the race is tied."

Actually, a tie in the Gallup poll translates to a GOP win at the polls. The Gallup poll surveys all registered voters. This group leans Dem and the Dems don't show up in the same numbers as Repubs.

This trend will be especially pronounced this year because many voters registered in 2008 for the first time because of the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. The first time only happens once, however, and those first-timers are unlikely to show up in the same numbers.

"But even that small movement is significant, given the competitiveness of the race throughout this presidential campaign year and the fact that debates rarely transform presidential election races."

They have enhanced significance this year because Obama has kept himself insulated, giving fewer press conferences, seeking out friendly interviewers like the View ladies and Dave Letterman. Voters got a rare chance to see an unfiltered, unprotected Obama. They discovered the emperor had no clothes, and not quite what he was cracked up to be.

"However, the generally positive unemployment report released on Friday may serve to blunt some of Romney's post-debate momentum."

generally positive?

the fact that Obama thinks a return to the unemployment rate when he got into office, and which he loudly decried at the time, is generally positive just shows how low he has pushed expectations

change we can believe in?

"In any case, with a month to go before Election Day, the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is still very much in doubt. That certainly raises the stakes for both candidates in the next two debates, Oct. 16 in Hempstead, N.Y., and Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla."

in any case, right up until the day of the debate, Dems and their media advocates were advancing the idea that Obama's re-election was inevitable

it was their main campaign strategy, along with class warfare, and it has been destroyed

October 08, 2012 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in today's RCP average, Obama leads by 1, but only because a couple of polls older than a week are averaged in

three of the four most recent have it tied

I'm sure you know where this is headed

we're in our current mess because the White House is occupied by an incompetent incumbent

as of last Wednesday night, the world now knows this

October 08, 2012 1:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "he has said he intends to keep the revenue base exactly as it is now and with the same distribution among the brackets he will do this by reducing deductions to compensate for the lower rates, increasing the incentive to produce this approach succeeded spectacularly in the eighties".


An oft-repeated Republican lie, this approach failed miserably in the 1980's:


Reagan nearly tripled the budget deficit, despite taking back much of his original tax cut by raising taxes seven of the eight years he was in office. Unemployment soared to 10.8% after the Reagan tax cuts and there was a runaway growth of federal spending. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,”


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/


Bad anonymous said "so, he's not reducing taxes at all just the rates he does intend to eliminate some government spending but that is intended to reduce the deficit".

Romney has promised to reduce taxes for the American public, if he lowers the rate but eliminates enough deductions to maintain the same revenue then he's lying when he tells Americans he's going to lower their taxes.

Bad anonymous said "welfare compromises anywhere from 5 to 12% of the budget, depending on how you define it".


Actually, its 5%

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor


and once again, even if he were to totally eliminate that spending it wouldn't begin to make up for the 7 trillion in military spending and tax cuts he promises to implement.

Bad anonymous said "well, first of all, the reduced deductions go to making up for the effect of lower rates, whuch is 4.8 trillion and the eliminate deductions would come from every bracket in a way to achieve neutrality so, middle class deductions would be eliminated to the extent the rates decrease for the middle class and that would be true for brackets and there are indeed sufficient tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction ".

No, there are most certainly not enough tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction.

October 08, 2012 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

From the Romney campaign's own tax plan, Mr. Romney's plan would

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

In order to meet those commitments Romney would have to eliminate every other deduction in the personal tax code And that results in an average $2000 tax increase for middle class families with children and an overall tax increase on 95% of American taxpayers:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/09/the-romney-tax-revenue-neutrality-will.html

Bad anonymous said "he won't specify which mix of deductions he favored because he didn't want to harden postions but he has indicated which deductions, and limits on deductions, are on the table again, he has said the mix of deuctions chosen must make the tax rate reduction revenue neutral this is what he has committed himself to do, and it is certainly doable.".

If he wants to be president he owes it to the American public to tell them which of their tax deductions will be eliminated before they vote for him. To hide his plans until after he is elected is extremely dishonest and unethical. The American public deserves to know what a Romney presidency would mean before they vote for him, not after. He has not specified which deductions are on the table, he's flipp-flopped back and forth so many times no one has any solid idea of what he'd do if elected and that's the entire point of his campaign. By refusing to detail which deductions he'd eliminate and which tax cuts he's promissed he'd actually go through with no one can determine if its doable or not, so stop the BS about it being "doable", with Romeny there's no way to determine that because his promises have contradicted each other throughout the campaign and to the best that anyone's been able to figure it out it doesn't remotely come close to being "doable" to make major tax cuts and have them be revenue neutral.

October 08, 2012 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Snow White, Superman, and Pinocchio were walking down the road when they came upon a sign that said "World's Most Beautiful Woman Contest". Snow White goes inside and returns a little while later with a tiara and a first-place trophy.

The three walk on until they came upon a sign that said "World's Strongest Man Contest". Superman goes inside and returns a little while later with a crown and a first-place trophy.

They continue their travels and eventually come upon a sign that said "World's Biggest Liar Contest". Pinocchio tips his hat and confidently struts through the door. After some time he returns and he's devastated, he's crying like he'll never stop.

Superman grabs his shoulders in each hand asks what happened. Pinocchio looks up at him, tears in his eyes and says:

"Who the f**k is Mitt Romney?"

October 08, 2012 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"An oft-repeated Republican lie, this approach failed miserably in the 1980's"

actually, we all liked the eighties down here

the only real complaint was the deficit but Reagan actually got something with the money, ending the cold war and, besides, Reagan's deficits were a joke compared to what's going on now

"Romney has promised to reduce taxes for the American public, if he lowers the rate but eliminates enough deductions to maintain the same revenue then he's lying when he tells Americans he's going to lower their taxes."

no, he promised to cut rates not taxes

taxes will stay the same under Romney

"Actually, its 5%"

by your definition

"and once again, even if he were to totally eliminate that spending it wouldn't begin to make up for the 7 trillion in military spending and tax cuts he promises to implement"

you're conflating again, which is disgusting

deductions and credits will be reduced to compensate for rate reductions in the range of about 4.8 trillion

cuts of 2 trillion will be earmarked for the defense department to protect liberty

"No, there are most certainly not enough tax deductions for the wealthy to compensate for their tax rate reduction."

there certainly are

this claim was made by the Tax Policy Center (TPC) but debunked by several studies

TPC made certain assumptions, which can be found in the appendix of their study, about which deductions were "on the table" and they were wrong

when you assume, you make an ass out of Priya

"Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

all of which will be revenue neutral

"In order to meet those commitments Romney would have to eliminate every other deduction in the personal tax code"

no, he wouldn't

"And that results in an average $2000 tax increase for middle class families with children and an overall tax increase on 95% of American taxpayers"

no, he said his plan will be revenue neutral and, if its not, he won't sign it

"If he wants to be president he owes it to the American public to tell them which of their tax deductions will be eliminated before they vote for him"

it will be a matter of negotiation and he has said which deductions are on the table

"To hide his plans until after he is elected is extremely dishonest and unethical."

hey, that sounds like Obama's five point plan

create a million manufacturing jobs

really? how?

train 2 million at community colleges

really? how?

get 100,000 new teachers

really? how?

yada yada

The American public deserves to know what an Obama second presidency would mean before they vote for him, not after.

He has not specified how he would revive the economy, he's flipp-flopped back and forth so many times no one has any solid idea of what he'd do if re-elected and that's the entire point of his campaign. By refusing to give details no one can determine if its doable or not

"the best that anyone's been able to figure it out it doesn't remotely come close to being "doable" to make major tax cuts and have them be revenue neutral."

he's cutting tax rates, not taxes at all

there have been several studies showing this is quite doable

October 08, 2012 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one can believe anything Priya says

just last Priya was saying Obama was clearly going to win the election

how come you're so stupid?

October 08, 2012 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON -- The strong debate performance by Republican nominee Mitt Romney against President Barack Obama last week has resulted in a dramatic tightening in the presidential race, according to tracking surveys conducted since Wednesday.

On Monday morning the Gallup organization reported that on three days of calling after the debate, their daily tracking survey finds Romney and Obama tied with 47 percent of the vote each among registered voters nationwide. Gallup showed Obama leading Romney by 5 percentage points (50 percent to 45 percent) in interviews conducted in the three days prior to the debate.

Most of the polls conducted by other organizations since Wednesday's debate have shown a similar shift in Romney's direction.

October 08, 2012 4:09 PM  
Anonymous smug, smirkin' and smamy said...

it makes me feel rather smug that I was RIGHT about the Presidential race and Priya was wrong

I have a big ol' smirk on me face and i'm thinking up some smarmy comments

October 08, 2012 4:33 PM  
Anonymous That was quick! said...

"WASHINGTON -- Early Monday morning, Gallup released the latest results of its national daily tracking poll, showing President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in a tie, with both men supported by 47 percent of registered voters. Just three days before, Gallup also noted, Obama had led Romney by five percentage points (50 percent to 45 percent).

Then at 1 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Gallup updated its daily tracking results again, this time showing Obama once more leading Romney by 5 points (50 percent to 45 percent).

Huh? Did Obama somehow regain 5 points on Monday morning?

Not exactly, but Gallup's Monday afternoon update suggests the initial bounce that Romney received from last week's presidential debate may already be starting to fade.

In showing Obama and Romney tied in its initial Monday morning release, Gallup broke from its typical practice of reporting presidential vote preference on a seven-day rolling average and instead compared vote preference on two sets of three-day averages. Looking at the results from interviews conducted Oct. 1 to 3 (just before the debate) and the results from interviews conducted Oct. 4 to 6 (just after), Gallup found the race had narrowed from a five-point Obama lead to dead even. "Even on this basis," wrote Gallup's Jeffrey Jones, "the race has become somewhat more competitive compared with before the first debate." In the eight days prior to the debate, the polling firm's seven-day averages had shown Obama leading by 4 to 6 points.

But on Gallup's latest seven-day results, the numbers reported on Monday afternoon, Obama's lead again expanded to 5 points. Given the consistency prior to the debates, the latest result at least suggests a slight rebound for Obama on Saturday and Sunday.

The Rasmussen Reports automated, recorded-voice tracking poll showed a similar uptick for Obama on its latest three-day rolling average, published on Monday."


Rasmussen Reports

"Monday, October 08, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney and President Obama each attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided."


t makes me feel rather smug that I was RIGHT about the Presidential race

For a few hours!

October 08, 2012 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ties all around, and not long ago, the media wanted you to believe Romney's cause was hopeless

but the world has now seen Obama directly confronted directly without a phalanx of yes-men to watch his back

we wondered why things were going so badly

now we know

with a world of challenges before us, the guy in the White House has been lazy, unprepared, arrogant, bored and incompetent

reportedly, immediately after the debate, Obama had thought he did great

this leopard doesn't have the instinct to change his spots

it's over

October 08, 2012 6:04 PM  
Anonymous smug, smirking and smarmy said...

Pew research poll of likely voters, through yesterday, has Romney ahead by.....FOUR!!!

October 08, 2012 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pew reports

"...Romney has drawn even with Obama in the presidential race among registered voters (46% to 46%) after trailing by nine points (42% to 51%) in September. Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters (1,112 likely voters), finds that 67% of Romney’s backers support him strongly, up from 56% last month. For the first time in the campaign, Romney draws as much strong support as does Obama."

October 08, 2012 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month."

Wow! Romney has moved up TWELVE points in the last month.

Romneymania is obviously sweeping the nation.

It's like a nightmare for TTF.

It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse and.....

Notice how it says "Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama"?

When Obama had that kind of lead, he was portrayed as a lock for re-election by the media.

It strikes me that liberals whine about the Citizens United decision because it allows unlimited contributions by corporations and yet most of the multi-billion entertainment/media industry functions as an arm of the Obama re-election campaign.

They don't have to buy commercials.

The guys reading the news are already slanting everything to their advantage.


October 08, 2012 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya has it easy

sitting in a nuthouse in Saskatchewan, it's very easy to deny reality

TTFers in America and not in an asylum are the ones who suffer

they have to bear the derision of rich Republicans with their smug smirks, gloating and making smarmy comments

and they think about what might have been

when they're not stoned

October 09, 2012 6:48 AM  
Anonymous smug, smirking and gloating said...

hey kids!

the latest this morning is that Romney has pulled within two points is Pennsylvania and Michigan

Andrew Sullivan:

"The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 - 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 - 45 lead. That's a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama's performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Romney's favorables are above Obama's now. Yes, you read that right. Romney's favorables are higher than Obama's right now. That gender gap that was Obama's firewall? Over in one night:

Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That's terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. On the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president's ass.

Momentum counts at this point in the election."

October 09, 2012 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Smug, smirking and gloating said...

Look: I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week - throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? And after Romney's convincing Etch-A-Sketch, convincing because Obama was incapable of exposing it, Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era.

How can Obama come back? By ensuring people know that Romney was and is a shameless liar and opportunist? That doesn't work for a sitting president. He always needed a clear positive proposal - tax reform, a Grand Bargain on S-B lines - as well as a sterling defense of his admirable record. Bill Clinton did the former for him. Everyone imaginable did what they could for him. And his response? Well, let's look back a bit:

With President Obama holed up in a Nevada resort for debate practice, things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now. Pretty boring for Obama too, apparently. "Basically they're keeping me indoors all the time," Obama told a supporter on the phone during a visit to a Las Vegas area field office. "It's a drag," he added. "They're making me do my homework."

Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve. If he now came out and said he supports Simpson-Bowles in its entirety, it would look desperate, but now that Romney has junked every proposal he ever told his base, and we're in mid-October, it's Obama's only chance on the economy.

Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.

I've never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate - and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 2004 than Obama last week. Even Reagan's meandering mess in 1984 was better - and he had approaching Alzheimer's to blame.

I'm trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it's hard to see how a president and his party recover.

October 09, 2012 8:31 AM  
Anonymous what a smug smirk!! said...

"Enjoy the bump."

this is more than a bump in the road

there's a volcano arising from the corn field

have you seen the well-to-do?

up and down Fifth Avenue?

spending every dime

on a wonderful time!!

October 09, 2012 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To smug, smirking and gloating -- those are some impressive smirking taunts about substance abuse and make it pretty clear who has the problem with it IMHO.

Actually, it's a lot more impressive you have found a way to show some respect for a gay man, quoting him to speak for you.

October 09, 2012 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Notice how it says "Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama"?

When Obama had that kind of lead, he was portrayed as a lock for re-election by the media


Pew wrote that, not "the media."

Pew may have assumed the outlier position when it found a 12 point swing this time around, but as Mr. Rasmussen warns "We have reached the point in the campaign where media reports of some polls suggest wild, short-term swings in voter preferences. That doesn’t happen in the real world. A more realistic assessment shows that the race has remained stable and very close for months. Since last week’s debate, the numbers have shifted somewhat in Romney’s direction, but even that change has been fairly modest...When evaluating polls, it is best to look for the common ground rather than just picking the one that is best for your candidate."

Compare Pew's outlier findings to RCP and HuffPo averages, which both show Obama ahead, and then compare Pew to Rasmussen reports. Once again today shows a tie between Obama and Romney in the general election, and shows Obama leading in the electoral college, as do RCP and HuffPo.

"Tuesday, October 09, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll
for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney and President Obama each attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Romney’s support is a bit more solid than the president’s at this point in time. Forty-five percent (45%) of voters are “certain” they will vote for Romney and not change their minds. Forty-one percent (41%) are certain they will vote for Obama."


Rasmussen: 2012 Electoral College Scoreboard

"Obama 237 (203 safe, 34 likely Obama)
Romney 181 (167 safe, 14 likely Romney)
Toss up 120"

October 09, 2012 11:18 AM  
Anonymous condescendingly smug and snug in smirking gloats said...

"Actually, it's a lot more impressive you have found a way to show some respect for a gay man, quoting him to speak for you."

I've always thought Sullivan was a good writer but my purpose wasn't to have anyone speak for me. I just think it's remarkable how devastated the Obama campaign is that even his allies can't ignore it.

As for "respect for a gay man", I have the same regard for gays I do for anyone else. It's the lunatic fringe gay advocates I object to. Some of them aren't even gay.



"We have reached the point in the campaign where media reports of some polls suggest wild, short-term swings in voter preferences. That doesn’t happen in the real world."

as our gay friend Andrew Sullivan says: momentum matters

"Romney’s support is a bit more solid than the president’s at this point in time."

you can say that again!!

"Rasmussen: 2012 Electoral College Scoreboard

"Obama 237"

that's less than 270 and momentum is shifting is unexpected states as we speak

this post by a TTFer just reinforces my smuggery

one of Obama's main arguments when he tries to persuade people to vote for him is that his election is inevitable

how bizarre...

but he really doesn't have any other arguments left

they were demolished by Romney last week

October 09, 2012 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the floor has clearly dropped out and Obama is hurtling down the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

new polls out showing Romney now leads in Ohio and Colorado

where has obama's electoral college gone?

long time passing

October 09, 2012 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who smoked another one during lunch break.

October 09, 2012 12:38 PM  
Anonymous smug bug said...

don't tell Obama

he'll want to come suck the smoke off the ceiling

October 09, 2012 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While Mittless will get his yes boys to hold down his classmate so he can cut off his blond locks.

October 09, 2012 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

four polls of likely voters in the last two days

one is a tie

the other three have Romney ahead 2-2-4

Romney now leads the RCP average

the debate impact is unprecedented

October 09, 2012 2:28 PM  
Anonymous a chug of smuggery said...

even Big Bird is bailing on the Obama campaign

this is becoming a stampede

"The folks on "Sesame Street" aren't happy with the Obama campaign.

The Sesame Workshop, which runs "Sesame Street," put out a statement on Tuesday asking the campaign to take down a cheeky ad that prominently features Big Bird.

The ad mocks Mitt Romney. It paints Big Bird as the shady criminal mastermind behind a raft of financial scandals.

The Sesame Workshop objected to having its characters used in a partisan context."

October 09, 2012 3:44 PM  
Anonymous gloating over Obama's glub-glub said...

today, the day one month before the election is the day that prestigious Gallup poll traditionally begins surveying likely voters rather than all registered voters

because, this when it matters

result: Romney leads among likely voters by two points

Americans are finally starting to firm up their decision

Obama, meanwhile, is looking more and more foolish and petty by the day:

"Mitt Romney on Tuesday slammed President Obama for talking about Big Bird on the campaign trail.

"These are tough times, with real serious issues. So you have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about Big Bird," Romney said at a campaign event in Iowa. "I actually think we have to have a president who talks about saving the American people."

Big Bird has become a theme in the presidential campaign after Romney said during last week's presidential debate that he would cut funding to PBS.

Team Obama immediately seized on the remark to attack the GOP presidential nominee.

Obama slammed Romney on the debate comment at a Thursday rally in Denver, saying "I mean, thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird. It’s about time."

The fight over the yellow puppet, a popular figure on the Sesame Street, came to ahead on Tuesday when Obama's campaign released a hard-hitting ad attacking Romney for his remark on cutting PBS funds."

October 09, 2012 3:53 PM  
Anonymous giggling and smirking said...

I guess Obama is sitting on Air Force One, feeling like the Morton's Salt Girl "when it rains, it pours"

October 09, 2012 3:58 PM  
Anonymous mr smugster said...

Obama is the dunce captain of a sinking galleon and all the vermin are jumping overboard

15% actual unemployment never ends well for an incompetent incumbent

October 09, 2012 5:10 PM  
Anonymous got a smug on me mug to bug the griggin libs said...

dissin' the 47% and getting away with it

with Romney blowing away Obama down the lanes of America

we must recognize that we are the ones the world has waited for

that this is the moment that the oceans began to roll back and the planet started to heal

hahahaha!

October 09, 2012 7:08 PM  
Anonymous smirking about the Dems' troubles said...

experts continue to be mystified about how it could be that unemployment rate fell three-tenths of a percent when the economy only added 114,00 jobs

no one in the administration has offered an explanation and most Americans don't believe it

we need a quick Congressional investigation to find out what's going on before the election:

"Government numbers showing the unemployment rate has fallen under 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years don't reflect actual business conditions, venture capitalist Ken Langone said on CNBC.


Joining a heated debate over the state of the U.S. jobs picture, the Home Depot founder said the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report was probably inaccurate.

Langone defended former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who caused a stir Friday morning when he charged on Twitter: "Unbelievable jobs numbers ... these Chicago guys will do anything ... can't debate so change numbers."

"I give Jack a lot of credit for being there and standing out. It makes it easier for me because he and I share the same point of view," Langone told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” "But I give him a lot of credit for saying publicly, 'Damn it, these numbers don't make sense.'"

The BLS said the unemployment rate dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent, the first time the headline number has slipped below the 8 percent mark since Barack Obama took over as president in January 2009.

That came even though the total net job creation was just 114,000. The drop in the unemployment rate defied economist expectations.

"These numbers don't square with what's going on with the economy," Langone said.

The White House rejects Welch's allegations, with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis telling CNBC she was "insulted" at the suggestion of data manipulation for political purposes.

Later in the Langone interview, real estate magnate Donald Trump also took up Welch's side, saying, "He's 100 percent correct. There wasn't an economist in the country who said it could possibly happen. By the way, after the election they'll do a big correction."

Langone said the economy is heading lower, not higher.

"The worst hasn't happened yet," he said. "The problem is we haven't yet begun to address the problems."

He specifically cited the Dodd-Frank banking reforms as a "nightmare (that) is already impeding economic growth in America."

As for the president, who was widely considered a loser in last Wednesday's debate against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Langone also predicted more troubles ahead.

"He will not do well in the second and third debates," he said. "For four years, he's had the benefit of these devices that he reads from. You know, it's like a drug, it's hard to get away from."

Langone added: "He's got nothing else to talk about. He's had a horrible record for four years.""

October 09, 2012 7:57 PM  
Anonymous smugly chugging champagne and caviar said...

I guess soon that Michelle won't be proud of America anymore

but she'll probably get over when she gets a spot on Dancing with the Stars

October 09, 2012 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let me suggest something that many conservatives realized after the debate: Obama did not do that badly. For Obama. He was the same listless, droning, exhausted-of-ideas scold we have seen for at least two years now (and maybe three).

He was Obama. This is what he is. He is not quick-witted. He is not a wonk. He has never been a wonk, a detailed-policy guy.

He is a guy who speaks vacuously of hopes and dreams and change and fairness.

He always has been.

The problem, for the liberals, is not Obama. This is what you bought. This is your guy. It wasn't his A game, but it was something close to his B+ game.

The problem was Romney, who was commanding, fluent, reasonable, articulate, sharp-witted, warm, occasionally funny, full of ideas, full of facts, full of thoughtful, detailed criticisms of Obama policy (who the hell expected him to bring up, as an afterthought, Dodd-Frank's failure to specify what a "reasonably qualified" mortgage applicant was, and how that chilled lending? Obama sure didn't!), and, therefore, ultimately, full of qualification for the job and yes, full of gravitas.

That's the problem.

Not Obama. I repeat: This is who Obama is. He has never been this brilliant intellect and keen policy analysts liberals have, in their BubbleWorld, dreamed him as.

The problem is not that Obama is or was awful. The problem is that he is what he always is -- adequate and hardly ever more -- and Romney is actually on top of things, an accomplished executive with a winner's thirst for victory an an A-student's understanding of what victory requires.

So part of the extreme emotional deflation of liberals is due to their having invented in their minds a conquering hero, an Eternal Champion, a Mussolini-like figure.

And he's never been that. He's been a very average politician, whose only above-average skill is giving a scripted, TelePrompTed address to people who already support him.

So for liberals, this is a huge slap to their entire fantasy worldview, the day they saw Obama As What He Is rather than What They Fantasized Him To Be."

October 10, 2012 7:01 AM  
Anonymous blame it on bush said...

Watching liberals unravel after last week's presidential debate has been almost as entertaining as witnessing the thumping that Republican candidate Mitt Romney applied to the Democratic incumbent Barack Obama.

Spinning into orbit, liberals have concocted every known excuse for the trouncing: Obama was out of practice; he expected a different Romney to show up; he experienced incumbents' "opening debate syndrome" (that's a new one); he tried to look too presidential and above the fray; he inexplicably failed to exploit Romney's fallibilities (e.g. his reference to the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal income tax). And so on.

Most amusing was Al Gore's explanation that Obama choked because the debate was in Denver, the Mile High City. Being an expert on global warming, Gore probably knows what he is talking about when it comes to being lightheaded in thin air.

At least no one blamed former President George W. Bush for Obama's dismal performance. At least no one that I know of.

October 10, 2012 7:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yesterday, I proudly endorsed President Obama.

As a combat veteran of two tours of Vietnam with 22 years of service as a Republican member of the U.S. House and Senate, the choice was not easy.

But it is clear: President Obama recognizes that our sacred trust with those who serve starts when they take their oath, and never ends.

That's why he's enacted tax credits to spur businesses to hire unemployed veterans and wounded warriors. He implemented and improved the post-9/11 GI Bill, the largest investment in veterans education since the original GI Bill more than 60 years ago. He's proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that would help put returning service members to work as police officers, firefighters, and first responders.

President Obama ended the war in Iraq, and has a plan to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. He's laid out a clear plan that would reduce the deficit and prevent the mandatory arbitrary military spending cuts that no one wants.

And something that hits close to home: President Obama secured the largest increase in VA investments in decades, so veterans get the care and benefits they earned, like treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. As someone with service-related PTSD, I meet with younger veterans weekly to help them through the treatment and transition. It makes a difference for them knowing their president has their back.

And let me be clear: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would be disastrous for America's service members, veterans, and military families.

When you fail to mention an ongoing war in accepting your party's nomination to be president, or veterans in a so-called jobs plan, the public praise rings hollow.

Mitt Romney has time and again failed the test to be commander-in-chief of our nation's military. When he politicized the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans in Libya, he demonstrated that he lacks the required resolve and steadiness. He sowed division between "us" and "them" when he wrote off 47 percent of Americans, including any veteran collecting disability like myself. He has still failed to outline any plan to end the war in Afghanistan or bring our troops home.

He has not proven himself fit to serve as commander-in-chief of this nation.

That's the difference in this election. Candidates might praise our service members, veterans, and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed. He never forgets that standing by those who serve is one of the core values of this country.

Even as a life-long Republican, I stand by him as he stands by all of us, putting national allegiance ahead of party affiliation.

Please take a look at my full endorsement, then pass it along to your friends and family:

http://my.barackobama.com/Proud-to-Support-President-Obama

Thank you,

Senator Larry Pressler
South Dakota"

October 10, 2012 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When he politicized the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans in Libya, he demonstrated that he lacks the required resolve and steadiness."

you mean like when Obama blamed the deaths of a spontaneous protest against a movie when it was actually an al quaeda attack allowed by the administration's incompetence in protecting our embassy?

"He sowed division between "us" and "them""

you mean like when Obama tries to get 90% of the votes by vowing to raise taxes on the other 10%, even though this does little to reduce the deficit

"He has still failed to outline any plan to end the war in Afghanistan or bring our troops home."

you mean the war that Obama is prosecuting and could end any time he wanted to?

did you know that Sesame Street had revenues of 234 million last year and 8 million was borrowed by the U.S. from China?

did you know that Obama is running television ads attacking Romney because he said he will end the 8 million, leaving Sesame Street with only 226 million in revenue?

amazing!

October 10, 2012 8:48 AM  
Anonymous have a Snickers bar said...

the collapse of the Obama presidency, the absolute worst in history, continues unabated as all likely voter polls in the RCP average since the debate now have Romney in the lead

no more ties

America is coming to a consensus right before the election

Obama is the President who wasn't there

he was an invisible chair

haunting the Oval Office

October 10, 2012 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, Mitt Romney did not make any major errors in a debate on the same night that Obama was off his game. After a year of gaffes and screw-ups this was a good thing for his campaign. He looked good in the debate. One day.

Do you think Romney would have had the balls to announce, "America does not torture?" Do you think he would have gone after Osama bin Laden, or would he have done what the last Republican president did? What do you think is going to happen when millions of people lose their medical coverage and the insurance corporations start making the life-and-death decisions based on profits again?

Think it through. Is that what you really want? You are very excited because Romney finally did not completely screw something up. He is having a favorable week in the polls as a result. But is that what you want in the White House? Think it through.

October 10, 2012 10:09 AM  
Anonymous smugly self-satisfied and smirking condescendingly said...

"Anon,"

that's my name

don't wear it out

"Mitt Romney did not make any major errors in a debate"

he could have made a number and still won

it was his presidential demeanor more than technical points that won it

I can think of a few mistakes he made and I don't think Obama made any screw-ups

at one point, he said that Obama invested 90 billion in Solyndra

obviously wrong but no problem

"on the same night that Obama was off his game."

Obama wasn't off his game

he rarely plays this game so this was more a revelation that he can't think on his feet

and four years ago, he debated Hillary

don't everyone laugh at once

"After a year of gaffes and screw-ups this was a good thing for his campaign."

in the last year he has secured the presidential nomination of a major political party against several capable and aggressive adversaries and the opposition of the Tea Party

must not have screwed up too bad

"He looked good in the debate."

yes, he did

"One day."

McCain lost the 2008 election in one day when he reacted inappropriately to the financial meltdown

"Do you think Romney would have had the balls to announce, "America does not torture?""

sure do

"Do you think he would have gone after Osama bin Laden, or would he have done what the last Republican president did?"

the groudwork for funding bin Laden was set in place by the intelligence community under Geo Bush

"What do you think is going to happen when millions of people lose their medical coverage and the insurance corporations start making the life-and-death decisions based on profits again?"

actually, that won't happen

"Think it through. Is that what you really want? You are very excited because Romney finally did not completely screw something up."

actually, Romney's never been my cup of tea but he's now a feasible alternative to the current disaster at 1600 Penn

"He is having a favorable week in the polls as a result. But is that what you want in the White House? Think it through."

OK, thought it through

I think, based on his experience in Massachusetts, that Romney will be a moderate, pro-business president, which seems just great right now

Obama is squandering our national resources

if Romney did nothing but stop that, he would deserve re-election in 2016

October 10, 2012 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" the administration's incompetence in protecting our embassy?"

You are talking about the House's incompetence. That's who holds the purse strings and appropriates funds for our security forces, and they are currently under Boehner's leadership.

Here's how one of Boehner's henchmen talks about the money needed to provide security in Libya:

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch [sic]economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million."


The Hous GOP would rather give tax cuts to millionaires than to adequately protect our embassy personnel. This is just the same as when President George W. Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient armor for their protection.

October 10, 2012 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Romney seemed to back away from his antiabortion position, suggesting that he would not actively pursue legislation that would outlaw abortions, a key objective among social conservatives.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the paper’s editorial board. “One thing I would change however which would be done by executive order and not by legislation is that I would reinstate the Mexico City policy which is that foreign aid dollars from the United States would not be used to carry out abortion in other countries.”

Later Romney’s campaign appeared to back away from his remarks, saying in a statement: “Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president.”

Romney’s comments come as the race for the White House tightens and as both candidates look to ensure base turnout in key swing states, such as Iowa, yet also look for ways to appeal to undecided, more centrist voters in states such as Ohio and Virginia.

On the issue of immigration, abortion and his comments captured in an undercover video of a fundraising event about the 47 percent, Romney has shifted and softened his earlier statements in moves that seem to be aimed at the center.

“I’m running out of fingers and toes to count the number of positions he has taken on abortion,” said Steve Deace, a conservative radio host in Iowa. “This is someone who does not have a deep or abiding position on this issue either way, and I think what it does is it puts pro-life leadership in America in a difficult position. I don’t know anybody in the pro-family movement who is not for sale who trusts him. People want to know who the person is that they are voting for at their core. I just don’t think he cares.”

Romney’s positions on abortion have run the gamut from a 1994 Senate race against then Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to today.

October 10, 2012 4:22 PM  
Anonymous climila17 said...

you know, as Obama is reminding us today, he never is at fault for anything

he just has a high standard of morality than anyone else and suffers the consequences like any martyr

here's what relly happened in Denver from the lips of the saint himself:

"I mean, you know, the debate, I think it’s fair to say I was just too polite,"

the latest on the Libya attack is that Hillary ordered a reduction in military force at the embassy a few days before the attack

reduced funding is no excuse, the conditions in Libya should have made it the highest priority

btw, when the attack happened, Obama and Hillary knew well that it was a terrorist attack

they lied and said it was the result of an exercise in free speech in America because they didn't want to explain how George Bush had kept America safe for years after 9/11 and Obama didn't

the false remark about the film riled things up and unleashed a spasm of violence around the world and endangered the life of an American citizen

all the fault of Sir Barrack Obama

as for Romney's position on abortion, he will be pressured to stay the course and his activities will be supervised by true blue Paul Ryan

truth is, no expects the abortion travesty to be solved by the Oval Office

eventually, the Supreme Court will reverse Roe v Wade, and, don't worry, Romney will appoint the right justices

one our favorite presidents was actually pro-life when he was governor of the Golden State

"A former military security officer in Libya told Congress on Wednesday that the State Department withdrew security officers from the country even as violence from militias and criminal groups grew worse earlier this year.

“The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood said in prepared testimony he delivered at a politically charged hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“The situation remained uncertain and reports from some Libyans indicated it was getting worse. Diplomatic security remained weak,” Wood said.

The session, titled “Security Failures of Benghazi,” included sharp accusations from Republicans that the State Department was more interested in presenting a picture of an improving situation in Libya than in ensuring the safety of its staff there.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in a sharp opening statement that the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi post could have been averted with a small amount of additional resources. He said an earlier bomb blast at the Benghazi post was a test by terrorists that worked but went unaddressed by authorities.

“I believe we could have and should have saved the life of Ambassador [J. Christopher] Stevens and the other people who were there,” Chaffetz said.

The committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said in opening remarks that the State Department on Tuesday finally “started to come clean” about the attack."



October 10, 2012 6:36 PM  
Anonymous slick, smug and sure as a bug in a rug said...

"The Hous GOP would rather give tax cuts to millionaires than to adequately protect our embassy personnel."

this is rich

you could get a lot security for the Libyan embassy with the eight million the Dems give to support the highly profitable Big bird every year

and, as Obama has inadvertently alerted us, that's only a small part of the wasteful government spending

October 10, 2012 6:43 PM  
Anonymous the winning hand said...

"WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has long opposed gay rights, from his opposition to repealing "don't ask, don't tell" to his vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to his decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court to the tune of $1.5 million in taxpayer dollars.

But Boehner spent Tuesday morning raising money for Republican candidate Richard Tisei, who is openly gay and supports same-sex marriage."

lunatic fringe gay advocates never get it

someone can favor libertarianism without favoring laws giving gays special preferences

October 10, 2012 7:14 PM  
Anonymous this is fun, is it not? said...

well kids, the Pew poll is no longer an outlier

the renowned IBD poll is out this evening and Romney has taken a five point lead among likely voters nationally

the Big Ro Mo doesn't seem to be slowing

October 10, 2012 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you have to hand it to obama:

he sure knows how to shut TTFers up!!

October 11, 2012 6:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Celebrate Day of the Girl

Donate to the Glubal Fund for Women to support the courage of girls like Malala Yousafza

October 11, 2012 7:48 AM  
Anonymous Barry says "no more Mr Nice Guy" said...

you guys can come out now

Obama made a comeback yesterday

Rasmussen has him up 1 and Gallup has the race in a tie

let's just hope Biden doesn't blow it tonight

fat chance, right?

October 11, 2012 9:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home