By Ted Belman
Last week was sure depressing. Obama was rising in the polls to significant leads especially in the swing states. How could this be? What with the debacle on the convention floor with the vote on the platform amendment, the flow of negative info on the economy, QE3 and most importantly, the multiple attacks on US Embassies throughout the Arab world.
Yesterday the big story was that the Romney camp was going to switch strategy because of the polls. It was all over the media and I began to wonder if these article and the polls were intended as self fulfilling prophesies.
This post may answer my questions.
THIS GRAPH SHOWS WHY OBAMA IS AHEAD IN THE POLLS
-
Ever since the arguably skewed CNN poll of a few weeks back, conservative voters have been looking at the methodology of polling companies with an increasing amount of skepticism. The fact that most polls have used a model that tries to mimic the voter turnout in 2008, when Democrats beat Republican turnout by 7 points (as opposed to presidential elections like 2004, where turnout between the two parties was relatively even), has not improved this state of affairs.
Read the whole article. There’s more.
The media is yet to connect the embassy attacks on Obama’s foreign policy preferring to push to movie as the provocation. But they pounce on Romney with manufactured outrage over his every comment.
The biggest story yesterday was that a hidden camera reported him saying:
-
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
“[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
I saw nothing wrong with the statement of fact but the media spun it an an outrage. Mother Jones characterized it as follows:
-
During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them.
The Romney campaign played catchup:
-
“Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work,” Romney spokesperson Gail Gitcho said in a statement. “Mitt Romney’s plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs.”
Pew |Research Center recently polled Americans on Obama’s reaction to the embassy attacks and on Rommey’s comment:
-
About four-in-ten Americans (43%) have followed news about the attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and the killing of an American ambassador very closely, making it by far the most closely followed foreign news story of the year.
Those who have followed this story have much more positive opinions about Barack Obama’s handling of the situation than Mitt Romney’s comments on the crisis. Nearly half (45%) approve of Obama’s handling of the recent attacks on U.S. embassies and the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya; 36% disapprove of Obama’s handling of this situation.
In contrast, only about a quarter (26%) of those who have tracked news on turmoil in the Middle East approve of Romney’s comments on the situation; nearly half (48%) disapprove.
With the media protecting Obama and pounding on Romney, how could it be otherwise?
@ Donald freyman:
A real Obama kool-aid drinker. Don your still in the Obama coma. You need to wake up.
As my friend Yamit and the late Ayn would say of liberal American Jews “Dumb Jews”, they follow the anti-Semite Obama all while he throws Israel under the bus.
@ rongrand:
Wake up Rongrand- Romney has a terrible enemy. And that enemy is Romney. He has foot in mouth disease.
Michael Ejercito Said:
From Wikipedia, under the title Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)
“There is much coverage and research on public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States, with most recent polls showing majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.[1] An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage,[2] with numerous polls after it showing majority support.[3][4][5][6]”
“Polls in 2012
A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.[10]
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[11]
A May 17–20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[12][13]
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President’s endorsement.[15] A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[16]
An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[17]
A March 7–10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[19]
A February 29 – March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[20]”
I was under the impression that acceptance of the marriage was slightly over 50%, and it turns out that I remembered correctly. But what was important to me, given that I’m offering suggestions on how to steal votes from the Democrats, is that liberals endorse it.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
Not just the Republican base, but a majority of Americans as well.
When Maine rejected same-sex “marriage” in 2009, that stated quite a lot.
Ben Ze’ev Said:
I thought you were a youngster.
I apologize for the irony of my last comment on you.
Michael Ejercito Said:
Yes, yes, the majority of the Republican base disagrees with same-sex marriages.
I was trying to give an idea of how this looks from the perspective of liberals, because the votes of some of them are of interest to us who want Romney elected. And in the liberal mindset (which I share in the issue of gays), second-class status imposed by a State makes the Sate appear as backwards.
Ben Ze’ev Said:
How about a pregnancy due to a defective condom? How about one where the couple is so poor that it can barely support themselves, and decide that it is not in the child’s interest to be raised in abject poverty? Do you think the State should be the final arbiter in such situations?
Ben Ze’ev Said:
I do write about some women who assert their legal right to be promiscuous, even if they do not intend to be promiscuous. I agree with them in asking for abortions to be legal. And I do so on the grounds that I hate the idea of the State controlling what those women do with their bodies. I love a State that interferes as little as possible with people’s lives.
Ben Ze’ev Said:
Contraception fails sometimes.
Ben Ze’ev Said:
I think you are mistaking me for somebody else. I never wrote about women who want to have lots of babies. In fact, I was (mostly) writing about those who don’t, since I was defending their right to have an abortion (and those women you are referring to obviously don’t want to have an abortion, since you say that they want to “pop out babies”).
But since you mention those women, who not only want babies, but also want the State to pay for them and their babies, let me remind you that I stated very clearly that the State has no obligation to pay for the cost of the abortion (I said women should have the right to an abortion, but on their tab). This should have signified to you that I do not believe in Welfare.
Ben Ze’ev Said:
Is my English that bad? I would attribute it to the fact that it is not my native language (and it is glaringly clear that it is not yours either).
TED BELMAN-I want to know what happened to my comment on RONGRAND’s post in which he says that (paraphrased) “over 65 years ago the Nuns of…..taught me to respect everyone who had faith in G-d, no matter of which faith” etc.etc
My response was that I grew up in Ireland, which produced 90% of all priests and nuns worldwide then, and RonGrand’s nuns made their opinions AFTER the War was over and the Holocaust revealed. And that 3-4 years previously, their teachings would have been very different. As I was growing up during that time a part of a tiny Jewish Community amoungst swarms of Catholics whom I KNEW, I was in the best position to know the truth.
So what happened to my comments” They were perfectly withing all decent bounds. If they were banned, (and not for the first time) you can take me off your email list. I do not wish to be a “tolerated” contributor at the beck and whim of anyone.
I shall place your Letter on Block. Goodbye.
Very Truly Yours,
Ben Ze’ev
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
A picture of “backwardness” the majority agrees with.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Laura is absolutely correct. And NOBODY, includig Laura, is advocating that a pregnancy caused by rape should not be abort allowable.
You write a prodigious amount of nonsense-barely readable- about indignant women insisting that their liberty is being infringed upon if they are asked to refrain from promiscuous sex duting a “likely” pregnancy-possible few days. Or at least, use protection. They insist that they should have babies, paid for by others, educated at the expense of others, fed by others, and sit on their fat backsides raking in Welfare and other benefits, paid for by others, and popping out babies.
What self respecting woman would want or accept that?? None that I am acquainted with. I even know some Democrats who would despise such thoughts.
Michael Ejercito Said:
True.
But denying them the right to marry, thus treating them as second class citizens, adds to a picture of backwardness of the GOP, a picture that the liberal media are very happy to paint, and one that bars certain people, people who see the validity of the economic and foreign policy prescriptions of the GOP, to vote for it – for fear of being called sexists and homophobics by their liberal friends. I predict that both Hollywood and (some) liberal journalists would give a huge hurray if the GOP were to change its stance on both the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. And this would liberate the aforementioned people to vote for the GOP (or so i hope).
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
Gays are a miniscule proportion of the population though.
Michael Ejercito Said:
Hello Michael
Thank you for informing me on the issue.
I have given the matter a little thought, i.e. if the Republican base would be inclined to assent to same-sex marriage, and my conclusion, based on the stereotypes that I have developed from the media, was that they would probably not: Evangelical Christians, a great ally of Israel that they are, just didn’t seem to me ready to welcome the idea.
Still, their attitude is not necessarily inimical to my proposal. I mean, the GOP doesn’t have to offer to gay people more than the Democrats do. They may grant to homosexuals exactly the same rights that their opponents do. What would the Evangelicals (or other Republicans) do in that case? Would they vote for Obama, with whom I presume they disagree on lots of other issues, or would they grudgingly vote again for the Republicans, cursing the GOP for its perceived institutionalization of an immorality? If they would go for the second option (as I think it likely), then no harm done.
I understand that Romney, or any other GOP candidate, could not have reached the position of Obama’s contender if he had been proposing tolerance towards same sex marriage from the beginning (they would have gone for Santorum, I guess). But then again, after winning the Presidential primary he could always announce a change of policy on gay rights in the name of attracting liberal votes, justifying it as a necessary step towards winning an election that is decisive for the future of America.
I’m an ignorant concerning American politics, but my hunch is that the Republicans have not ever hated any President more than Obama, and therefore Romney could get a pass from the Republican public for opening up to homosexuals. Evangelicals wouldn’t like it, but they would have to swallow it, at least if they wanted to get rid of Obama who, after all, would be equally accommodating to homosexuals (since we have assumed that Romney would merely copy the Democratic platform on gay rights).
I repeat, I’m an ignorant concerning American politics. But it would be great if there were a way of infusing the Republican platform with more tolerance towards same-sex marriage (and abortions). Hollywood is a lost possible ally of the GOP on account of these two issues.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
Republicans have defended marriage as an exclusive union of one man and one woman since 1856.
Thirty-one states voted to reaffirm this institution.
there is no groundswell for same-sex “marriage”.
@ rongrand:
The Democratic party in America have brought the “us and them” concept to a fine point, even more than in the days of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. Nobody seems to ever mention Tweed and tammany in recent years. I grew up reading stories about them, which have stuck. They stop at absolutely nothing, just to be in power, and they use it to aggrandize themselves and denigrate and demonize their opponents.
Romney’s 47% made up of seniors, students, military members
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19578858/romneys-47-made-up-of-seniors-students-military#ixzz26xY1n4Yf
So who are these people, and do those numbers add up? University of St. Thomas finance professor David Vang says it is true that 47 percent of Americans don’t’ pay any federal income tax, but that’s hardly the whole story.
“People need to understand federal income tax is not the same as total tax paid,” Vang explained.
Most of the 47 percent Romney mentioned still pay federal pay roll taxes — but half of them are seniors who draw on Social Security. Students and military members also fall into that percentage swath.
If you take out those groups, only 8 percent of the U.S. population does not pay any federal income tax. Most make under $20,000 a year and they get tax breaks that came when Ronald Reagan’s tax reform took millions of the working poor off the tax rolls. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich spearheaded the child tax credit.
Of course, the rich get their tax breaks too. In fact, an estimated 35,000 Americans who make more than $200,000 don’t pay federal income taxes either — mainly from charitable and hospital deductions, not to mention capital gains.
Romney tried to explain his message about the 47 percent in an interview with FOX News on Tuesday, after Neil Cavuto asked him to respond to allegations that he “all but called them moochers.”
“No, I’m talking about the perspective of individuals who I’m not likely to get to support me,” Romney responded.
Still not backing down, Romney said he was making a strategic point that he’s not likely to get votes from that group — although that may not be entirely true. A map from the Tax Foundation shows the states with the highest and lowest percentages of people who with no tax obligation, and the states with the highest percentage are predominantly red, southern states.
Romney’s statement also contradicts history, since lower-income voters and the elderly largely voted for McCain in the last election.
Read more: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19578858/romneys-47-made-up-of-seniors-students-military#ixzz26xYCeslj
Ted Belman Said:
Veterans for Romney: Military and Seniors Are in That 47 Percent
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that contrary to the “Entitlement Society” rhetoric, over nine tenths of entitlement benefits go to the elderly, disabled and working households. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2010 report, shows that there are 10.5 million Americans who are among the working poor. Though the U.S. poverty line is different in each of the U.S. states, the average for a family of three is about $18,530.00 per annum as of 2011.
I used to volunteer as a financial counselor for the Navy Marine relief Society, a social service organization that specifically helps military families with financial difficulties. I have seen families whose income needed to be supplemented by government aid for these families to survive between paydays. I personally assisted these families in filling out applications for the food stamps program, which is now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to the 2012 active duty military basic pay chart, a military family of three in the E1 and E2 rank may qualify for government nutrition assistance.
I know for a fact that the military members have taxes withheld from their paychecks because pay stubs are some of the documents I need to qualify them for financial assistance. Though the Department of Defense will not disclose the number of veterans and military families receiving SNAP benefits, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have this on their website:
“Military and Veterans Families. Benefits You Have Earned. You serve our country proudly and honorably, and we want to inform you that through our nutrition program, you may be eligible to ensure you, your family, and fellow veterans have the assistance to ensure you have nutritious meals.”
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15018/veterans-for-romney-military-and-seniors-are-in-that-47-percent
Meira Said:
What is this assertion based on. What polls have been done. Or is it just an attempt by the media to plant ideas without any support.
That secret video recording made in Florida about Romney — well, of course, the Obama-bots in the media won’t ever play the tape in its entirety. It would be too damning of Obama who’s running around with J-Zee and drinking from $800,000 champaign fountains. In the Romney tape, Romney talks about what he did with his inherited wealth — and what did he do with it? He gave it all to charity. He wanted to be able to say that he was a self-made man (didn’t acquire his riches from inheritance). How much does the multi-millionnaire Obama donate to charity? Or is the arrogant, lying, multi-millionnaire in the Oval office (only too anxious to see yet more Americans on Food Stamps) too busy with his fund-raisers?
Maybe, Mr Belman the editor can write about this, as a stand alone article? Romney alienated his traditional Christian Right voting base with his 47% welfare comments. They include a large chunk of the military too. It doesn’t bode well for him to alienate so many Republican voters.
Laura
Southern whites troubled by Romney’s wealth, religionhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-usa-election-poll-bible-belt-idUSBRE88A05H20120911
(Reuters) – Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced — despite all evidence to the contrary — that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim.
So in this year’s presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance.
“Romney’s going to help the upper class,” said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. “He doesn’t know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house.”
She’ll vote for Obama, she said: “At least he wasn’t brought up filthy rich.”
White lower- and middle-income voters such as Harris are wild cards in this vituperative presidential campaign. With only a sliver of the electorate in play nationwide, they could be a deciding factor in two southern swing states, Virginia and North Carolina.
Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled over the past several months shows that, across the Bible Belt, 38 percent of these voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is “very wealthy” than one who isn’t. This is well above the 20 percent who said they would be less likely to vote for an African-American.
Laura Said:
So my purported mistake refers to the first part of my claim (Republicans more hostile to women than Democrats), and not to the second part (Republicans more hostile to gays), for I can see that you brought no argument against that.
It would be great if you could cite the exact quote of the allegedly sexist remarks, because what you consider sexist might not be sexist at all. But apart from that, if you equate sexist remarks by some campaign officials with the official platform of a party, then you have lost all sense of proportion. Plainly put, the sexist remarks of a campaign official do not turn the whole party into a bunch of sexists, whereas the Republican official thesis that abortions should be banned, if one considers it repressing against women (as I do), it definitely turns the party into a women-repressing party, for it is the whole party (ok, a majority of it) that approved it.
Laura Said:
But of course you do not consider the abortion banning as hurting women, because you have the solution: “Hey girls, stop being promiscuous”.
Now, one is tempted to remind you that there are pregnancies unrelated to promiscuity, rapes being the culprit in some situations, defective condoms in some others where married couples are involved. But the far more important issue here is that there are millions of women (some of them non promiscuous at all and not intending to ever have an abortion if pregnant) that consider it a serious violation of their rights if the State interferes to control their bodies, and, horrified, they wonder why Republicans (rightly, no pun intended) demonize State interference with the economy but not with women’s bodies. Why this discrimination in the application of laissez faire? Those women are bound to consider the Republicans far more hostile to women than the Democrats, and I fully agree with them.
A small digression from politics: have you ever considered what life would be like for a child that its mother never wanted it and just kept it because of the State’s prohibition on abortion? Will a kid grow balanced if its mother never loved it?
Laura Said:
I do not recollect suggesting that the State pay for contraception (and how could I, since I’m a neolibertarian). Women should be free to have an abortion – on their tab.
Finally, decency would have required that I give you the charitable interpretation: I would have liked to think, Laura, that if you were even slightly aware of how much your rhetoric (typical of Republicans) scares away liberals that see Obama for the real danger he is, liberals that would consider voting for Romney simply because the stakes for Israel, America and the world are too high right now to reelect Obama, then you would consider toning down your rhetoric on issues that do not directly impact on your life (John wants to marry George, and Maria wants an abortion, do you really mind?), issues that matter a lot to potential liberal voters for the Republicans.
Laura Said:
But, no, you don’t want the charitable interpretation and you made it clear:
“Well then that would make them nitwits [if they vote for Obama, despite the gravity of the situation]. If western civilization is destroyed so are all their rights and freedoms along with it”, isn’t that what you said?
Which means Laura that you are happy to sink along with them, instead of cajoling their vote by giving them some room on issues such as abortion and gay rights, issues that affect their lives much more than yours. You care more for badmouthing the naughty girls (and the gay boys I suppose) than for seeing Romney reelected, than for seeing America on the right economic track, Israel relieved of the threats that surround her and Islam getting the answer that only the Republicans are capable of giving to it.
You care more for casting criticism than for America or Israel.
As I said, I would have voted for Romney right now, if I were American. This does not make me any less fearful of your views on women and gay rights.
Laura
I’m happy to revise my opinion, please bring your data and resources that show the Repbublican Christian Right traditional stock isn’t part of the 47%. Here are two more neutral sources. You’re welcome to show me something else. Who are the 47%? It doesn’t matter if the data comes from liberal or conservative sources, because a fact is a fact.
How Do the 47% Vote?http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/how-do-the-47-vote/
In 2008, when voter turnout rates were at or around record highs, fewer than half (44.9 percent) of adults in households making less than $30,000 per year voted, according to Census Bureau data. And of those who did vote, a substantial chunk voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate: 25 percent of those making under $15,000, and 37 percent of those making $15,000 to $30,000.
Word of advice, everybody:
First, IGNORE most of the polls. So far as I’m concerned, the only polling that is worth a fiddler’s fart is Rasmussen. I checked them yesterday, and they had Romney leading Obama 47 to 45; if “undecided leaners” were included, it was an even up 48/48. Rasumussen predicted the results of the ’08 election within ONE POINT.
Most of the other polls – e.g., CNN, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. – are skewed in a liberal direction by over-sampling Democrats and other ruses designed to make Obama look stronger than he is. This, in turn, is designed to discourage those of us who support Romney (“Oh what’s the use? Our guy is going to lose anyway…might as well stay home…”).
Yes, outside of conservative talk radio, and the PARTIAL exceptions of FOX/WSJ, the rest of the national-level print and broadcast media supports Obama. That is outrageous, but the effect of this support may not be as great as one would think. Only 29% of the American public generally trusts the media in any event (the lowest level since the 70s, when this was began being tracked). Also, if the media and polls determined who would be president, Kerry would have won in ’04. They don’t always get what they want.
Romney can still win. The polls were very close, or had Carter in the lead, in the months before the ’80 election, and while the media was a lot more honest then, they didn’t like Reagan, either. In early September of ’88, Dukakis at one point had a seventeen point lead over Bush the Elder.
Point here is we shouldn’t be giving up yet. Far from it.
But in the end, I agree with Laura. If Obama really does win in an honest head-to-head contest with Romney – or at least as “honest” as most modern American elections are – then this country is finished. America will no longer exist. To me, “America” was suspended the day NCHO took office. Collectively, we were duped into electing a traitor and an imposter. If we make the same mistake twice, this polity is not worth saving.
There was an article (I’ve lost the source) which maintained that there is a zero percentage of Blacks in America who’ll vote for Romney. (I suspect I know why — it has to do with Romney’s mormonism — Mormonism was spoofed by the creators of South Park — I don’t know if the spoof was accurate or not, I don’t care.) but I do suspect that Obama will be re-elected. He will be disastrous for the West.(There’s an argument going about which maintains that Obama doesn’t consider the murder of ambassadors as a foreign policy failure…Obama can use it to his advantage — to further the encroachment of his beloved Shariah in America, etc.
Wrong even on that point. The Obama campaign ran an extremely misogynist campaign against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the ’08 election. And the democrats continue to hurl sexist remarks against Republican and conservative women.
Well then that would make them nitwits. If western civilization is destroyed so are all their rights and freedoms along with it.
Liberal women are fond of saying “my body, my choice”. Well how about your body, your responsibility. If they want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, stop being permiscuous. Do not demand that others pay for their lifestyle choice by providing them with free contraceptives.
There is much more at stake for America then your very narrow and self-centered issue of abortion rights. But then again liberals have always been self-centered, self-indulgent children who refuse to accept responsibility.
Laura Said:
My point was that the Republicans are more hostile to women and gay than the Democrats, not that the USA does not fare better than the rest of the world with respect to those issues (by the way, it does not, at least as far as gay rights are concerned: some European countries have legalized gay marriage. And, to my knowledge, abortions are perfectly legal throughout most of Europe).
The Democratic hooking-up with Islam indeed represents a threat to women and gay, but it is a long term one, and it is certainly not perceived as such by many people. A woman who wants to be able to completely control her body, and a gay who wants to get married, they might both be presented with a dilemma: should I vote for a party that has more chance of making America thrive economically and more determination to stand up against Islam, China and Russia (the Republicans) or for the party that respects some of my most intimate wishes (the Democrats)?
I think they will go for the second option, to the detriment of Israel, America and the whole world, and that’s why I suggested that the Republicans (present or future candidates) reconsider their platform on abortion and gay marriage (after all, the opposition to the second one is whimsical, and the opposition to the first one rests on a very disputed concept of what a person is).
With regards to my “nonsense”, I’m all for my absolute freedom, so long as no other person’s body or property is being damaged because of me.
@ Meira:
Keep supporting your messiah no matter what catastrophes he brings to this nation.
@ rongrand:
I’ve never known a Mormon to be anything but a moral and decent person. The liberal hypocrites who attack Romney’s Mormonism also slam others for being justifiably “islamophobic”.
@ Meira:
This is absolutely false. The article is propaganda and misinformation.
This is nonsense. Gays and women are freer in American than anywhere else in the world. It is the democrats who repress women and gays by their support of islam’s infiltration into American and western society. Those who support gay rights and women’s rights should vote for the party which will uphold the constitution, fight sharia encroachment into our courts and preserve American and western values and civilization.
Laura Said:
The thing is that all Republicans aspiring to be Presidents are being portrayed as religious fanatics by the USA media. Hence, Obama’s feckless handling of the embassy incident passes as moderation and his capitulating foreign policy as realism.
Considering that Republicans do indeed have better economic policy suggestions (not allowing more and more people to become dependent on the State is the most obvious one), and considering also what deleterious impact for the international community an American decline will have (which necessarily will mean an ascendancy of the freedom-hating Chinese and Russian regimes), is there something that we could advise the Republicans so that they change the horrible image that the Democratic media are painting?
I think that yes, and it concerns two issues: homosexual rights and abortions. If the Republicans were to acquiesce into homosexual marriages and complete freedom for abortions, I speculate that their public image would change immediately.
If I were an American, right now I would definitely vote for Romney, on the grounds that an Obama reelection would be mayhem both for Israel and the world. The world needs a strong America which does not seek to appease her enemies but to protect her freedom-abiding allies. But if the Obama threat dissipates (either now, if he is defeated in the elections, or in 4 years, when he will leave office), I will revert to my usual stance towards Republicans, which is one characterized by suspicion/puzzlement. I mean, how on earth can I seriously picture them as freedom-loving when they suppress the freedoms of gay and women?
And isn’t it a pity for the Republican party to have indeed the right attitude toward the economy and foreign policy, and yet not be given a chance to save America and the international order just because of an aesthetic whim (gay rights) and an thoughtless intervention to habeas corpus (right to abortion)?
Laura, the immigrants are not traditional GOP voters. The welfare leeches are the GOP base, of white traditional conservative Christian voters that Romney was calling ‘leeches’
Where Are the 47% of Americans Who Pay No Income Taxes?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/
Mitt Romney says citizens who don’t pay income tax will never vote for him. But eight of the top 10 states with the highest number of nonpayers are red states.
So let’s set that speculation aside and look at who the people are who actually pay no income tax. Romney’s statements are a little unclear, but it appears that the 47 percent figure represents all of those who pay no income tax, rather than the Democratic base. His problem is that those people are disproportionately in red states — that is, states that tend to vote Republican:
@ Gil:
Gil that says a lot about you, a bigot.
Fortunately the good IHM (Immaculate Heart of Mary)nuns taught me over 65 years ago to respect everyone who has faith in G-d regardless of their faith.
We judge people by their character and how they treat others, not by their faith or color.
@ Gil:
Come now, have you heard of Sheldon Adelson? Have you heard he’s bestowed one or two shekels on Romney? Would Shelly choose a loser deliberately? Is he at least trying? Remember. Our forte is our concentric support of our group as a whole. Is Romney just a tool of our fascination with controlling the American political process? If you can answer that question, please do so. Stand tall, front and center, come now, tell us all.
We are playing a dicey game, let’s admit that. Unless we are right all the time, we can wade into the deepening swamp of Middle Eastern politics. We simply cannot be wrong so we have to bet the farm, oops, the kibbutz, on our cherished hope that we have stacked the cards just right to succeed. If not, hello WW3.
Laura Said:
Laura, I don’t understand your comments, they contradict what you say elsewhere. You equate with being white with wealth and and that all WASPS are capitalist? Christianity is socialist, in general, although the GOP has conservative Christians as it’s voter base. It’s worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes are Romney supporters ie. traditional Christian Right GOP, as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military)
So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him. The Christian Right base of the GOP is white, republican, conservative, and not rich. He insulted them, by calling them fleecers. It’s strange, in other places here, i’ve seen you lauding the WASP, and here you are supporting what Romney said, which is denigrating his WASP base. I’m also a bit surprised at your ‘immigrant’ comments. Are you aware that a lot of immigrants are well to do professionals and business leaders? The Indians are leaving the US for richer pastures in India, and they were one of the elitist groups around.
I think you confuse being white, conservative as being capitalist elitist. The immigrants are not all poor fleecers, and the WASP GOP base is not all capitalist and rich. In fact the real rich are with the Democrats and they’re not WASP either.
Romney should say: “I worked for what I have and will not apologize for being wealthy”. Poverty is self-inflicted. If Americans don’t think Romney represents them, but a president who’s a communist and a muslim does, then this country has fundamentally been transformed and is not worth saving.
rongrand, you’re mistaken and misinformed.
Romney doesn’t have the backing of Christians, both liberal Christians and conservative Christians distrust him. At least Obama has the backing of liberal Christians.
Frankly, I’m puzzled, why did the GOP choose this loser? Even McCain would have been better. He was at least liked by liberal Christians, immigrants, hispanics, and blacks. If the GOP wanted a candidate that had to work for the Conservative Christian vote, why not choose someone else, rather than a mormon?
Te race is over. The GOP is finished. Obama has already won.
@ rongrand:
Excellent response. I do like Romney and I don’t like obama. My opinion is the only one that matters. And I certainly don’t care what welfare leeches and immigrants think.
@ Donald freyman:
All what you say is what the liberal media wants you to believe.
I hate to correct Ann Coulter but “if you were smart you would be a Republican” No, “if you were smart you would be a Conservative”
Notice how the dumb dumb democrats will follow their leader, right wrong or otherwise. They don’t question. Blind faith, no stupidity.
Follow an “acorn community organizer, an anti-Semite pretending to be a Christian who embraces Islam and bows to a Saudi prince, orchestrated by George Soros & company and the liberal left media”
He is no friend of Israel and will say anything you want to hear to secure your vote.
His sweetheart is none other than Debbie Wasser Schultz who carries his banner.
Christian, Jews whomever, are not wary of Mormans. Romney is a good person.
The liberal left media (NBC, MSNBC, CBS & ABC) continue to feed the democratic-liberals mental midgets garbage and they suck it up.
@ Laura:
Romney is all over the map. He is disliked by Hispanics, a lot of women, blacks, immigrants in general, the elderly, those on welfare, most Christians who are wary of Mormans. I believe, though I can’t be 1000% certain, he can count on the vote of his wife.
They approve of Obama apologizing for our freedoms and disapprove of Romney standing in defense of America? This is astounding and depressing, and I can only conclude that America as we have known it is finished. This is in such stark contrast to how Americans responded to the hostage crises during the Reagan/Carter campaign. I’ve come to the conclusion that Americans are undeserving of what our founding fathers created. America deserves Obama.
If Americans reelect Obama after his catastrophic presidency, if their eyes aren’t wide open after this past week, then there is no hope for America.
This administration knew our embassy could be hit and they did nothing to secure it and Americans died as a result. This is a scandal of major proportions. The media is attempting to distract with class warfare.
@ Sirkowski:
You are an easily manipulated fool or a marxist. Taxing the rich won’t create jobs. Romney is right. The demorats appeal to those who depend on government and unfortunately those numbers are increasing.
Sirkowski Said:
Fair point. Reagan did the same and is regarded as a hero. But thats another issue.
My point was that national humiliation was the end of Carter. Are you saying that 33 years later national humiliation dosent matter? I’m not American, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m just curious.
@ Andrew:
Tax the poor; give to the rich. Jeez, I wonder why everyone thinks Romney is a douche?
What is going on in the US!? Obama should be sunk by now. Carter’s presidency was over with the Iran-hostage-fiasco. This is far worse.