In the first half of October, Mitt Romney raised $21 million more than the President according to Federal Election Commission filings covering the period from October 1st to the 17th.
For the first 17 days of October, Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee said they pulled in just over $90 million while Romney and the RNC brought in almost $112 million during that same time period. Obama’s campaign has outspent the former governor by almost $117 million over the course of the campaign leaving the president with $125 million while Romney has almost $170 million to spend between now and election day.
This campaign marks the first where both candidates have raised almost a billion dollars each and both may well best Obama’s record from the 2008 campaign. Romney has raised $975 million and Obama has brought in $981 since the beginning of their fund raising efforts. Voter’s in battleground states will be on the receiving end of the deluge of advertising likely to be purchased in the final week and a half of the campaign.
The candidates were allowed to pull in these massive totals as this is the first election where both candidates waived public matching funds in order to remove fund raising limits. The sharply-divided electorate has also energized donors on both sides to open their wallets in the hopes of giving their candidate a better chance.
Super PACs and unions have also played a major roll in election financing. Both bundle money from donors, but because of recent campaign finance changes, Republicans can use Super PACs to raise money on an even footing with democrat-friendly unions – something the left has fought vehemently to prevent.
Obama’s fund raising efforts have been called into question lately as, according to web researchers, the majority of his web traffic appears to have originated overseas. The President’s fund raising website does not verify address information as strongly as Romney’s and allows foreign addressed credit cards to be used to donate to the campaign. Considering the strong support Obama gets from Russia, China and Iran, there is some concern of foreign influence on the election.
It’s true that the Mainstream Media has been madly in love with Obama since he came on the scene as a Presidential contender. But, over the past month or so, it’s been cooling down from a plot-free “XXX” sex-fest, to around an R-rated movie. Still a little hot and heavy, but at least that’s an improvement.
One could argue that Jake Tapper started it, at least by grilling Jay Carney over the Benghazi attacks just a couple weeks ago. There were at least a few conservatives out in the twitterverse that got excited about that little dance. Even if it took a while for others to start joining in, the “maybe we really do need to question Obama” itch has been spreading slowly through the ranks of generally liberal journalists that have been protecting the President every chance they get.
CNN stepped up and questioned Obama’s second-term plan yesterday. Of course, the item in question begged for it, since it was just a fancy re-hashing of all the old Obama plans that haven’t worked. Not to be outdone, NBC’s Brian Williams managed to point out the lackluster numbers of crowds showing up for Obama events. Surprisingly, Williams even implied it might have something to do with the economy not doing as well as people would like.
From the print world, the Des Moines Register got the last laugh after the dust-up over an “off-the-record” interview with Obama. They gave the President the proverbial raspberries by putting his grumpy face picture on the front page next to a smiling Romney. Who said print journalism was dead?
Finally, CBS’s “60 Minutes” came clean about some deleted footage that shows the White House had lied about Benghazi. Of course it’s Twitchy.com and Breitbart.com pointing out these misadventures in journalism, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are happening. For those that were questioning whether or not the attack on Benghazi would make a difference in this election, this might be a major indication that it has. It at least threw a healthy glass of ice water on those lovers – the MSM and Obama.
Lila Rose, of the Live Action Advocate, has released a video exposing Planned Parenthood’s negligence in the death of Tonya Reaves, who bled to death in a botched abortion at one of their clinics. Additionally, the video contains recorded phone conversations with Planned Parenthood employees lying to would-be visitors about the health risks involved with an abortion procedure at clinics that have had medical emergencies in the past. It’s utterly despicable.
In an email that accompanied the release of this video, Rose said that:
when a caller ask[ed] Planned Parenthood’s Birmingham, AL, abortion clinic if when women get abortions at the clinic, ‘They’re not in danger, they don’t get, like, injured?’ Planned Parenthood responds, ‘No ma’am, we don’t have any type of procedure where a woman would receive an injury.’ While the Birmingham Planned Parenthood clinic botched a woman’s abortion in 2010 while it was on probation from the Alabama Department of Health.
‘Our investigation exposes not only how unsafe Planned Parenthood clinics can be for women, but also how dishonest and untrustworthy Planned Parenthood is to the very women it claims to defend,’ says Rose. ‘How shameful that two months after their clinic botched an abortion that took the life of 24-year old Tonya Reaves and her pre-born baby, Planned Parenthood lies to the public and pretends nothing happened. When it comes to the lethal dangers of its billion-dollar abortion business, no lie is too audacious for Planned Parenthood.’
‘Planned Parenthood continues to engage practices that hurt women and young girls, all while billing themselves as the guardians of women’s health,’ says Rose. ‘Our investigation proves that Planned Parenthood has little regard for the safety concerns of its ‘patients’ and continues to lie and mislead the public about the dangers of abortion.’
Furthermore, Rose notes that while “President Obama campaigns for women voters, one of his top donors and champions, Planned Parenthood, is deceiving millions of American women about the services they provide, their history of abuse cover up, [and] their radical abortion agenda.”
It’s videos like these that should have everyone rethinking, or reaffirming, their opinions when Susan G. Komen for the Cure decided to rescind its $500,000+ grant to Planned Parenthood last winter, which sparked controversy and saw pro-choice groups become, oddly enough, anti-choice with their bullying of Komen to reinstate their donation.
While this is an election about the economy, it’s indicative of the type of campaign Obama wants to run by relying so heavily on these wedge issues, and employing Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, to campaign for him full time as Election 2012 comes to a close.
Liberals will certainly eat this up, and given that Romney is surging with women, which explains his surge in the polls, expect the left to hammer him harder on these peripheral issues.
Richards says that a Romney presidency would “set women back decades.” Tell that to the family of Tonya Reaves.
Where: Listen live here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cdnews/2012/10/25/he-said-she-said
What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.
Tonight: Special guest: Katy Abram (Twitter: @katyabram), Director of New Media and Communications for Americans For Prosperity-PA and political activist.
Why is this deception? Well, I’ve written about that before… many times.
President Obama is trying to convince Americans that Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than they did. This is profoundly incorrect, and the most important evidence to back my point, (taken from my previous post linked above) is the following table found in this IRS document which contains pertinent tax rate data:
Click Image for Expanded View
These data show the number of income tax returns filed in their respective income ranges (the number is in thousands). For example, in 2009, there were 18,696,000 tax returns filed where the filer earned between $20,000 and $30,000. In the image, you will notice some data is circled. The large red oval encompases incomes that are < $50,000 yearly. The green oval encompasses incomes that are > $50,000 yearly. I’ve expanded upon this in the chart below.
Click Image for Expanded View
You will notice some key pieces of data highlighted on this chart. The chart also distributes the two taxpayer buckets circled in red and green the IRS chart: those making < $50,000 per year, and those making > $50,000 per year. The explanations are as follows:
– Yellow highlight: This is showing the breakdown of incomes for the overall taxpayer buckets. Those making < $50,000 comprise 92,889,000 of the 140,495,000 total tax filers, which is around 66% of the total. Many people focus on the “50% mark” – the income at which 50% of Americans make more and 50% of Americans make less. This is around $40,000 per year.
– Green highlight: This highlight shows the final incometax rate paid by each group. As you can see, those making < $50,000 paid an average income tax rate of -2.59%, and those making above $50,000 paid an average income tax rate of 13.54%. Each income bucket shows the respective rate paid by those within the bucket. For example, those making between $30,000 and $50,000 paid an income tax rate of about 2.9% while those making $200,000 to $500,000 paid an income tax rate of about 19.5%.
– Red highlight: This highlight shows the final tax rate paid after payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) are factored in. You will notice that since these taxes are paid on the first $106,000 income, they affect those in the < $50,000 bucket more. For those in the upper income ranges, there is little change from their pre-payroll tax rate and after these taxes are applied. Regardless, when these taxes are factored in, those making < $50,000 (again, about 66% of the all Americans), paid a total tax rate of about 5.4%. You will notice that those making > $50,000 paid a total tax rate of about 18.7%. The true “middle income group,” those making between $30,000 – $50,000 yearly (the average American income falls in this range), paid a total tax rate of about 10.55%
All the data presented in this analysis is FINAL. All tax rates are final. This means that every rate is presented after loopholes, deductions, and write-offs.
Why is this all significant? Well, for starters, as stated, President Obama tries to claim that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than “you.” I have stated time and time again that this is simply deceiving. Mitt Romney paid around 14% of his income in taxes; 66% of Americans paid 5.94%. How can he be paying a lower tax rate than most Americans when most Americans pay a grand total of about 5.94% in federal taxes? Fact: he doesn’t. Mitt Romney paid a higher greater tax rate than most Americans. Period.
Additionally, I know there are many taxpayers out there that claim, “I make $40,000 and I paid a higher rate than Mitt Romney,” but, when looking at the whole picture, my answer to those people falls into one of two categories:
1. No you didn’t. Yes, while you have paid your taxes throughout the year, you had these taxes removed from your paycheck. And yes, it seemed like they were removing quite a bit (from my paycheck, around 27% is removed each time). What most people seem to forget is that lower income earners tend to receive large tax refunds (notice the large negative income tax rates for low-income earners above). These people often forget to factor refunds in, and these refunds reduce the FINAL RATE PAID significantly. Take a look at my tax return info and see how much I received in a refund. That refund reduced my tax rate quite a bit: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/part-2-what-do-mitt-romneys-tax-returns.html
2.You’re a statistic anomaly. It’s that simple. IRS data, as seen above, shows that those making < $50,000 annually, the majority of Americans, do NOT pay a greater rate than 14%. If you are, for whatever reason you do, you’re a rare breed.
In summary, can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama’s claim of Mitt Romney paying greater tax rates than most Americans is true? The case does exist, but on such an insignificant level. The facts and data show that Obama’s claim is just plain false. This has been shown time and time again, but yet Team Obama keeps repeating the same lie. How can anyone be okay with this? Please share your thoughts below.
This election will be decided by women. That’s what the experts say, which is why the left-wing and the Obama campaign were so adamant in driving the wedge issues of abortion and contraception to consolidate their support. During the Democratic National Convention, abortion was front and center. As I’ve said ad nauseum, it was Abortion Fest 2012. The only thing missing was an addendum to the party plank calling for birth control pills to be sold next to the Skittles in vending machines. Regardless, as liberals continue their false narratives against Republicans, namely “the war on women” and “binders full of women,” they’ve seemed to forgotten that they’re not a monolithic voting bloc, as we’re seeing them flee the president.
Women are rising in the workplace and women already dominate many areas of the economy. They are outperforming men and are increasingly becoming the breadwinners in the American household. They also earn the majority of college and doctorate degrees. For women, the world is their oyster. It’s motivation. Something that us guys seem to have problems channeling for ourselves (I blame video games!). However, with women being more on the front lines of the economic decisions for themselves or their families, they no longer factor in the social issues that usually drew them into more liberal political organizations.
As Molly Ball of The Atlantic reported on October 20, “Obama’s edge with women began to melt away [a few weeks ago]. More than any other group, women have accounted for Romney’s surge in the polls, which has now given him a slim lead in the national popular vote and in some calculations of the electoral college. Women, it appeared, were not as firmly ensconced in Obama’s camp as they had seemed. Indeed, they were abandoning the president en masse.”
Her piece, titled Revenge of the Soccer Moms, detailed her travels in a suburb near Dulles Airport in Virginia. Here, Ball had:
…spoken to several…Christian-school moms and found them staunchly pro-life and staunchly Republican. But Eileen and Zebib both said they hadn’t decided who to vote for. Zebib didn’t think Romney’s plans were specific enough. Eileen found Romney’s manner in the debates shamefully disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Eileen was strongly antiwar; Zebib was intrigued by the ideas of Rep. Ron Paul.
Unlike their more conservative cohorts, these women agreed that abortion is not any of the federal government’s business. But they also didn’t believe abortion rights were on the line in the coming election. “It has never changed,” Zebib said. “We’ve had pro-life presidents many times, and it didn’t change. It’s a bumper sticker. They try to divert our attention.”
Eileen touched her friend’s arm. “Most women I know, whether they’re for Obama or Romney, they feel the same thing,” she said. “It’s a distraction. That whole Gloria Steinem thing is old.”
Lots of fluidity there.
Furthermore, “Romney’s ‘binders full of women’ line, an awkward phrasing that inspired reams of mockery on the Internet, wasn’t changing any minds among the women I spoke to,” according to Ball. She noted how “Democratic partisans saw it as more evidence Romney was out of touch; Republican partisans saw it as of a piece with his business background. ‘Anyone who’s ever been a professional, ever, knows that’s how you get resumes: in a binder,’ 43-year-old Republican stay-at-home mother Michele Moss said, rolling her eyes. Only someone who’d never been in the business world — like Obama — would fail to understand that.”
Ronald Brownstein at the National Journal also reported on Romney’s surge with women voters on October 18. In his column he noted the “slippage [that] has occurred not only among usually Republican-leaning blue-collar white women but also their white-collar counterparts. Largely because most college-educated white women hold liberal views on social issues, the Democratic nominee has carried them in four of the past five presidential elections; in 2008, 52 percent of such women backed Obama. Until Denver, national surveys consistently showed him winning a majority of these white-collar women.”
Furthermore, several polls conducted since the president’s disastrous showing in the first presidential debate in Denver indicate “that Obama had fallen behind Romney among college-educated white women and was attracting 45 percent of them or less, according to data provided to National Journal. Usually, Democrats run much more strongly among college-educated than non-college white women. After that decline, however, both surveys found only a small gap between them. Recent state polls in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Ohio also found Obama losing ground with upscale white women since September” according to Brownstein. If folks on the left truly feel that the first debate only had a temporary impact in this race, counseling is available.
For a second, I thought that was a donut.
While some other polls showed Romney’s impact on women voters as de minimis, it shows the Obama needs to energize his base on other issues, besides the economy, to blunt Romney’s boost in the polls. A monumental feat since his record is terrible.
Generation Opportunity revealed the extent of young women’s support for free-market policies. According to the report, 11.6 percent of women between 18 and 29 do not have a job—a statistic that suggests they may be more worried about economic than social issues. Of the 1,003 adults surveyed online between July 27 and July 31, 2012, 77 percent favor reductions in federal spending and 66 percent believe “if taxes on business were reduced, companies would be more likely to hire.” Sixty-six percent would support “reducing federal spending over raising taxes on individuals to balance the federal budget.”
A recent poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics showed depressed enthusiasm for Obama among under-30 voters. Ninety percent of respondents said the difficult economy forced them to change their daily lives. Fifty-six percent reduced their food and grocery budget, while 27 percent moved in with family, took on extra roommates, or moved into a cheaper home.
Hadley Heath, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, agreed with Roseboom. “Women, broadly, are more focused on the economy and jobs,” she said.
Heath—a young, unmarried woman—called the Democrat’s “War on Women” not only “preposterous,” but also an insult.
“It is insulting to women to put our issues in a box because they relate to the female body or contraception,” she said. “All issues are women’s issues.”
Heath praised former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. “He’s never treated women any less than he’s treated men,” she said.
Lastly, to show how much of an impact the war on women narrative has had on the electorate – just look at Sandra Fluke’s campaign stop in Reno where a whopping ten people showed up to hear the poster child on government dependency and liberalism run amok, push for early voting
I don’t have any insights as I was half a nation away from the event, but by all accounts, this rally was huge.
To give you some scope, here’s a panoramic shot of the crowd (click on the image to pan 360 degrees). Notice how far back the crowd went (actually you can’t tell because they go further than the camera could capture.)
If Obama has done nothing else, he has galvanized Americans against him.
The debate last night was very boring. I’m enthused about voting Barack Obama out of office and I think Mitt Romney will win this election, but I definitely see why people probably switched off the debate to watch Monday Night Football or the San Francisco Giants game. In all, polls show that President Obama pulled ahead of Governor Romney, but this is the least important of all the debates. Luckily, following the first presidential debate, the resulting clashes follow along a decreasing scale of importance and viewership. This race is Romney’s to lose.
The one point of the debate where I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated was Libya. Romney played it safe when it came to this area ever since the president slammed him in the last debate concerning the politicization of the tragedy. He didn’t want to come off that way again. However, it was a frivolous point since the president dithered on releasing all the details about the attack and exuded gross incompetence in protecting our diplomats abroad. Romney still should have gone after Obama hard on this front. It’s one of the main reasons why Romney is on par with the president concerning the issues of terrorism and foreign affairs. It’s a salient event that casts doubt on Obama’s competence as commander-in-chief, and Romney failed to pull the trigger.
This hesitance or prevarication was demonstrated by the governor in the previous town hall debate during the question about ‘assault weapons.’ He could have doled out a haymaker by mentioning Fast and Furious, but muddied the response and failed to capitalize on this administration’s negligence that has led to American deaths abroad.
While they both agreed on Syria, Romney could have hit Obama on the fact that his withdrawal from Iraq, which was done to placate the anti-war left of his coalition, has allowed for President Assad to survive. Iranian supply planes fly over Iraqi airspace with impunity since they don’t have the capability to defend their own skies. Iraq doesn’t even have air-to-air fighters. Furthermore, on the notion the president made concerning Romney’s foreign policy prescriptions having been proved wrong, the governor could have hit back with The Surge in Iraq – and Obama’s opposition to it. The Surge proved to be a success, decreased the sectarian violence, and paved way for political cooperation.
Nevertheless, some of my conservative colleagues felt Romney did poorly – that he had lost the election. I tried not to be such an Eeyore this time. Granted, I had my doubts, especially during the month of September, but the first debate changed the game. Romney has altered the entire electoral map. Women have greatly attributed to the Romney surge and that’s where I wanted to see how they reacted.
To no one’s surprise, men reacted more positively during the last presidential debate, and most of that energy went towards Mitt Romney. Women were bored. Their level on engagement mostly flatlined indicating that not only was this a very boring debate, but Obama failed to sway them – which he desperately needs to do. I guess that Huffington Post article detailing how women are more engaged in foreign affairs, which was spun to cast some hope that this debate could be decisive for Obama was wrong (shocking). In the end, it’s the same as it ever was in the post-Cold War era. Foreign policy, as an issue, doesn’t win you votes at home anymore. Obama won the most unimportant debate of the election and the polling show it.
It ‘s still an election about the economy. As Dafydd Ab Hugh noted earlier today, “the Luntz focus group also found that whenever Romney managed to drag the economy into the conversation, he won those portions of the debate, big time.” Like Bush 41 before him, Obama is falsely assuming that killing bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, and deescalating the war in Afghanistan will win him votes, and give him room to construct a bloc of support that’ll push him to victory. The problem is that the so-called ‘savings’ from Iraq and Afghanistan, if there are any, are cancelled out by his new one trillion dollar health care entitlement – and the taxes that will be excised as a consequence of that. Second, bin Laden being dead doesn’t help Americans find jobs.
…as far as changing votes, 24% said they were more inclined to vote for Obama, 25% for Romney. On the question of who was qualified to be Commander in Chief: 60% said Romney was. 63% said Obama was. PPP did a poll. It had Obama winning. But here’s the unkindest cut, from @DKElections (Daily Kos Elections). I’ve changed the tweet a little to make it more readable.
Weird: Among indies in @PPPPolls, 47% say they’re more likely to vote for Romney, 35% less; 32% say they’re more likely to vote for Obama, 48% less. But indies thought O won debate 55-40, voting for him 46-36
Not weird. Romney’s strategy was correct. He gained some ground. Even though the “independents” skewed strongly to Obama.
Obama’s whole campaign — and his debate strategy — has been to “win the newscycle” and lob a bunch of small-bore attacks and micro-appeals. He keeps doing that and doing that.
I’ve been saying this for a while: You can win every newscycle and still lose. Because people don’t vote on whatever dumb story you pushed into the newscycle. They’re voting the the future, and the country, and their children. A lot bigger stuff that binders full of Big Bird
mini-debate [that occurred] went to Mitt Romney as he relentlessly repeated his major themes — the president’s last four years haven’t worked, take-home pay is down, 23 million are unemployed or underemployed, and the national debt has grown from $10 trillion to $16 trillion. Since far more Americans ultimately vote on domestic concerns than foreign policy, Romney was smart to reserve his sharpest criticism for Obama’s fiscal and economic record. Those points hit home, and Obama seemed a bit surprised and on the defensive when trying to justify his domestic record.
If you wanted to construe this debate as a victory for Romney, as some conservative commentators did, then you could say that his pivots to the economy and the deficit, which aren’t extraneous to foreign policy since we’re in such a fiscal mess, were the factors that allowed Romney to eek out a win.
Guy Benson noted that Romney also needed to pass the commander-in-chief test, which is to show the American people your confidence in handling our national security, understanding the threats we face, and demonstrating that you can be trusted with nuclear weapons. I agree that Romney passed assessment, as did David Gergen, albeit he could have been more aggressive. On the other hand, Obama’s aggressiveness over shot the mark with some saying it “diminished” his role as commander-in-chief. He’s already president. He didn’t need to crank it up to eleven, which some independent voters might find off putting.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter that Ed Schultz, liberals, and some conservatives thought that Romney’s debate performance was horrible. It doesn’t matter that both candidates agreed on some issues. It REALLY doesn’t matter that foreign policy guru Rev. Al Sharpton believes that Mitt Romney missed international affairs in school. Sorry, Reverend – but the world does understand Mitt Romney of foreign policy. While a ‘win is a win,’ its effect is rendered de minimis when nobody cares. Monday’s debate just wasn’t all that important.
The Reverend Billy Graham is encouraging us to vote based on biblical values. Rev. Graham placed ads in the Wall Street Journal and Ohio newspapers this week launching a national advertising campaign.
“We are at a crossroads and there are profound moral issues at stake,” Graham said in the ad. “I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms.”
“The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren and this great nation is crucial,” he continues. “As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”
The campaign comes on the heels of a supportive meeting with Mitt Romney. Romney’s Mormon religion has been seen by Evangelical Christians as a cult and not a true Christian religion. Last week the GEA website removed Mormonism from their list of cults paving the way for an evolved relationship.
While not a direct endorsement of Mitt Romney Billy Graham’s statements are reflective of a growing concern of the leftist policies promoted by the Obama administration.
Did you watch the last presidential debate? The number crunchers expect fewer did because of the baseball final and Monday Night Football. Those who did watch it generally reported a rather ho-hum evening. No knock out punches on either side (to the chagrin or relief of each side).
But today the fact checkers are out in force. It appears that most of the mis-statements were made by the president. Here are a few facts that Team Obama’s personal television channel has had to admit.
Check 1: Did Mitt Romney support the auto bailout?
Obama: The — look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to, you know, airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn’t true.
MSNBC Lori Robertson: “Romney was right. Obama was wrong.”
Check 2: Obama Tried To Deny That He Proposed A Status Of Forces Agreement That Would Have Left Thousands Of Troops In Iraq.
ROMNEY: “You didn’t want a status of forces agreement?”
OBAMA: “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”
ROMNEY: “I’m sorry. You actually — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces against, and I concurred in that and said we should have a number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with. That was your posture and mine as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops and I thought it should have been more troops.”
OBAMA: “Governor, this was done a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago you indicated we should still have troops in Iraq.”
ROMNEY: “No, I didn’t. Sorry, I indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed.”
The Status of Forces Agreement signed between the United States and Iraq in 2008 called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by 2009 and be out of the country entirely by the end of 2011.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “So Governor Romney is right, that the administration has tried and failed to get an agreement called Status of Forces Agreement that, in fact, would have allowed a small force of troops to remain for several years in Iraq.”
Check 3: Did the MA tuition free college programs start under Romney?
ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter “got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning.”
OBAMA: “That happened before you came into office.”
ROMNEY: “That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong.”
MSNBC: THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.
There are more. Share them with your undecided voting friends. Fact Checking Obama. You can check on the liberal websites but you’ll have to do a little more digging…
And if you want to watch the whole debate again here it is: C-SPAN
I have danced around this issue, avoided it, felt guilty for saying nothing, and in general increased the probability that I will end up with a stomach ulcer. In 2008, we ended up with our first black President, and there was a slight promise that we would reach the point of being able to call ourselves a “post-racial” nation. Of course that has been blown out of the water since, as the Obama administration has turned out to be the most racially divisive in recent memory.
Conservatives regularly complain about liberals playing the race card, and are, in return, regularly called racist. Of course there is also the liberal propaganda about blacks only being Democrats, and if a high-profile black is insolent enough to admit supporting Mitt Romney, they are met with abuse. But, the last straw for me personally came with the rampant death threats against Romney. I gave Wayne Dupree (@NewsNinja2012) a heads up about it, and he offered his two cents on the issue. Then, I questioned Wayne on the issue on The 405 Radio (Hour 2, about 10 minutes in), asking if I was wrong to suggest that black liberals threatening to riot and kill Romney were actually racist themselves.
What struck me was that Wayne stated that he felt badly that I, as a white conservative woman, was uncomfortable bringing this up in the first place. Whether or not this can be considered racism or reverse racism is theoretically an argument for sociologists. Given the state of academia in general, the result would probably be a statement against whites suggesting that blacks are capable of racism at all in the first place. However, that does not change the fact that race relations in America have gone downhill over the past four years. It could be argued that there is yet another swing toward self-imposed segregation among liberal blacks. And the irony is that while some community leaders might scream against blacks becoming members of a permanent underclass, at the same time, they are supporting Obama, a President that has done a great deal to guarantee that, at least when considering low-income blacks. There is no argument that social programs have grown by leaps and bounds, and that is one of the largest bones of contention in this election.
But, this is nothing new in the world of Democratic Party politics. Democrats have regularly made their way by giving voters programs that they think they want, purely for political support for at least a few years – until the bills come due. And Democrats rely heavily on the lack of intelligence of their followers. James Carville has finally admitted it, but it’s no great revelation. Here in Pennsylvania, Democrats are known to fund their war chests with Union money, and then tell anti-Union supporters that either they aren’t really taking that money, or that it won’t turn into pro-Union votes while in office. Both are bald-faced lies, of course. But it is what is politically expedient. And their supporters buy it. Even my father did, for a short while. Then he started campaigning for Republicans, in spite of remaining a registered Democrat.
But, this is not about political lies, per se. It is about a false conception by the public that if someone is black, they by definition, cannot be racist. That simply is not true. Why do these liberal blacks on Twitter want Mitt Romney dead? Why are they threatening riots in the streets if he wins? They are making these threats because Romney is a successful white man, period. To them, it is impossible to consider that a white man could ever understand them. Maybe no white man can, given the depth of hatred that has been instilled in them. And that is what racism is – hatred. Regardless of how this election turns out, we as a nation, will be left with masses of people that have learned to hate over the past four years. Maybe they had those feelings before 2008, but there is no denying that they have been amplified in the intervening years. That is the Obama legacy. He offered “Hope and Change”, but traded down to “Hatred and Divisiveness” instead. How’s that working for you?
Mid-day on Monday, two polls were released that show Obama continuing to lose ground in his bid stay in the White House.
Gallup released its results for the daily Presidential Tracking poll. Among likely voters, Romney now holds a 6 point advantage over the incumbent 51% to 45%.
Also released today was Rasmussen Reports likely voter poll for Iowa showing Obama and Romney in a tie 48% to 48%. Reflected in CDN’s Election Center electoral map, this moves Iowa from leaning Obama to toss-up.
Gallup has been recently criticized for having bent to pressure from the Obama campaign. The pollster’s credibility is being challenged for having included a larger portion of minorities, democrat-leaning questions and more cell phone users than prior polls. These changes were demanded by representatives of Obama’s re-election effort and despite those changes, the Gallup poll shows Mitt Romney’s momentum increasing.
Recently polls in Colorado, Indiana, Ohio and other battleground states have shows Romney turning the tide. More likely voters in all but the most left-leaning states are turning to Romney as the choice for President in the 2012 election.
Newspapers that tend to be liberal are also abandoning the President. The Arizona Republic, a typically democrat-friendly publication just recently endorsed Romney stating “We expect better job growth in a Romney economy mostly because Mitt Romney does not fear or dislike a free-wheeling, growing, free-market economy. We cannot say the same of President Obama.”
With the economy at the forefront of voter’s selection criteria, the third debate to be held tonight is unlikely to sway voters in either direction. The last debate has historically had little effect on the election and early voting has been going in many states for several days.
All polling and trend data is pointing to a Romney win as long as likely voters turn out to vote.
The usually left leaning Arizona Republic today boldly announced its endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. Citing a desperate need for job creation, managed debt and a need for true health care reform the editorial staff of the Republic carefully explained desire to see the United States return to the super power of which it is capable.
From the Republic:We believe the nation’s best opportunity to escape the compounding woes of spiraling debt and economic stagnation lies with a president who believes in the free market’s capacity to heal its own wounds.
That leader is Romney. The nation’s economy now is in desperate need of the kind of jobs-creating animal spirits that President Romney would encourage.
The economy indisputably will benefit, perhaps significantly, from a flatter, fairer system of taxation along the lines proposed by Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan.
It will benefit, too, from a regulatory environment that does not smother small businesses with punitive, anti-competitive, hoop-jumping requirements that favor their bigger competitors. We expect a Romney administration to foster that kind of growth-oriented, business-friendly environment.
But, more to the point, we expect better job growth in a Romney economy mostly because Mitt Romney does not fear or dislike a free-wheeling, growing, free-market economy.
We cannot say the same of President Obama.
The editors remind the reader that President Obama has worked diligently to promote the view government not individuals grow the economy casting aside the long held belief that small business is the backbone of the country.
The reason Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” comment on July 13 in Roanoke, Va., resonated among his political opponents wasn’t because it revealed some great secret.
It resonated because it validated a suspicion that the president has done little to dismiss. He has consolidated federal power and reach in health care, banking, the auto industry and energy production. He has fostered the view that all good economic things flow from Washington.
It’s an interesting review. The state of Arizona continues to struggle with the poor housing market, foreclosures, and unacceptable unemployment numbers. Most analysts put the state in the red column so perhaps the Republic is just hoping to gain approval and perhaps subscriptions among its readers. Never the less, an endorsement by the newspaper of record for the of Arizona is still a coup for the Romney-Ryan team.
You can read the entire editorial at the Republic’s website AZCentral.
If you are looking to donate to President Barack Obama’s campaign and currently live outside of the United States, No Worries! Because you are in luck! Obama.com is accepting donations. The Obama.com website redirects everyone to the campaign donation site. Not only will the donation page accept your money, but it will also accept false donation information. You can enter in false street addresses, zip codes, states, and it does not even ask for specific card information, such as the three digit security number or the CVV on the back of any American debit or credit card, which verifies that it is an American card.
One British citizen Chris Walker recently donated two different 5 dollar donations to the website Obama.com, which is actually the Obama-Biden donation website. The NY Post reports that,
“not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.
According to campaign law, anyone who donates 200 dollars or more must be reported to the FEC, and this 188 dollars would keep those foreign donations under that identification threshold.
Walker who also attempted to donate the Romney campaign was unable to make the donations because the Romney campaign site asked for specific information, the New York Post also reported that Walker said,
“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”
The address that Chris Walker attempted to enter was his street address where he truly lives, which is in England, but entered Arkansas as his state of residence. Along with a United States zip code, was accepted by the Obama campaign’s website, but was rejected by the Romney campaign’s website.
Earlier this month on October 8th, Breitbart News reported that it;
“obtained an advance copy of the bombshell report which reveals that the Obama.com website is not owned by the president’s campaign but rather by Obama bundler Robert Roche, a U.S. citizen living in Shanghai, China. Roche is the chairman of a Chinese infomercial company, Acorn International, with ties to state-controlled banks that allow it to “gain revenue through credit card transactions with Chinese banks.”
In the report found at the Campaign Funding Risks website, which is a downloadable document, it states;
According to Markosweb, which uses data from Google Analytics, approximately 68% of Internet traffic going to Obama.com comes from foreign locations. An examination of the backlinks going to Obama.com reveals that a strong majority is from foreign language or foreign-based websites. These websites do not appear to be catering to American expatriates.
During June and July of 2012, web traffic to the site increased, again with the majority of the traffic coming from overseas. An examination of the traffic generated indicates that most visitors are not coming to the website through search engines but are arriving there by typing in “Obama.com” or by clicking a link to Obama.com.
In regards to this “mix up” of unregulated errors, the Obama Campaign’s spokesman Michael Czin, said this was, “a minor technical error.” and “All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified.”
In the same report by GAI, at the Campaign Funding Risks website also stated that;
The Government Accountability Institute found numerous links to Obama.com on foreign blog sites and forum boards. These links increase the probability that foreign nationals will try to donate to the Obama campaign, a campaign whose online security tools are lacking.
President Obama and the his party have been advocates of more government oversight of financial institutions and stronger regulations, and yet, this “minor error” seems not be that important to him or his campaign, or for that matter the democratic party in general. There are no outcries for investigations or hearings into this incident.
I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. —President Obama 2010 State of the Union Address