Showing posts tagged 2012 elections

Republican candidates share contempt for Government

shihtzuman:

Ben Adler from the Nation

At the Fox News/Google Republican presidential debate in Orlando on Thursday, candidates argued with each other more frequently than at any of the previous debates, but they all shared one theme: that the federal government is the enemy. To a degree that has been unmatched in recent years, serious contenders for a major party nomination expressed contempt for the very government they seek to lead. You would have to go back to Barry Goldwater in 1964 and his segregationist allies to find a campaign when “states rights” were so in vogue.

(Reblogged from purplegem)

(Source: sarahlee310)

(Reblogged from pieceinthepuzzlehumanity-deacti)
ryking: Karl Rove-linked Crossroads has more than doubled its earlier fundraising goal of $120 million View high resolution

ryking:

Karl Rove-linked Crossroads has more than doubled its earlier fundraising goal of $120 million

(Reblogged from diadoumenos)
sarahlee310: shortformblog: Wanna labor through a presidential forum? There are two GOP events this week, including one on Wednesday and this presidential forum happening right now in South Carolina. Jim DeMint, above, is playing host. Watch over here. We’ll have a roundup later today. I listened to parts of that debate while working on the new porch I am building.  It was all I needed to cement the fact that I will vote Democratic in 2012.  These candidates are absolutely frightening to me. View high resolution

sarahlee310:

shortformblog:

Wanna labor through a presidential forum? There are two GOP events this week, including one on Wednesday and this presidential forum happening right now in South Carolina. Jim DeMint, above, is playing host. Watch over here. We’ll have a roundup later today.

I listened to parts of that debate while working on the new porch I am building.  It was all I needed to cement the fact that I will vote Democratic in 2012.  These candidates are absolutely frightening to me.

(Reblogged from sarahlee310)

Never Wrong Forecasting Model Predicts an Obama Victory In 2012

Allan Lichtman’s model for predicting presidential elections, The Keys To The White House, has correctly predicted the results of seven straight presidential elections, and the keys say that Obama will be reelected in 2012.

Lichtman’s model is based on 13 keys which evaluate the performance of the man who holds the presidency. If six or more of the keys go against the president’s party, the incumbent loses.

Here are the 13 keys and how they stack up for Obama via U.S. News’ Washington Whispers:

1). Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.

2).Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.

3). Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.

4). Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.

5). Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

6). Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key.

7). Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.

8). Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.

9). Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.

10). Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.

11). Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

12). Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key.

13). Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

These keys measure the things that have historically caused an incumbent president to lose his reelection bid. As you can see, Obama stacks up pretty well. The current president wins 9 keys and loses 4. One of the major assets to Obama’s reelection effort which isn’t measured by the keys is the lack of popularity of the opposition party. Republicans are much less popular than Obama.[…]

(Reblogged from sarahlee310)

Why presidential candidates’ faith matters

themoralperspective:

“When it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively,” writes Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, in his latest column. Keller illustrates his argument with a scene from a recent Republican presidential candidate debate:

Michele Bachmann was asked during the Iowa G.O.P. debate what she meant when she said the Bible obliged her to “be submissive” to her husband, and there was an audible wave of boos — for the question, not the answer. There is a sense, encouraged by the candidates, that what goes on between a candidate and his or her God is a sensitive, even privileged domain, except when it is useful for mobilizing the religious base and prying open their wallets.

Yet Keller is not buying this line of thought. He continues:

But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.” I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises.

And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.

As such, Keller has issued a set of well-posed questions to the range of Republican candidates. I’ll post an update if any of the candidates actually respond, though unfortunately I don’t expect that they will. Politicians have a knack for avoiding tough questions, especially when said politicians are running for office and the questions concern religion.

That said, Keller’s got the right idea. Religious beliefs often play a central role in shaping one’s moral and legal views, and so those beliefs — especially when they belong to a public servant — should be open to discussion.

Update: you can read more coverage on the blog Friendly Atheist.

(Reblogged from diadoumenos)

Mitt Romney tears himself away from the remodeling of his $12 million summer home to demand that President Obama end the Obama family's vacation.

Why are our politicians so disproportionately rich and what can we do about it?

(Reblogged from diadoumenos)

Perry: The military doesn't respect Obama

sarahlee310:

technipol:

In Iowa last night, newly anointed GOP primary heavyweight Rick Perry offered a novel reason he is running for president (in addition to God calling him to do so):

Rick Perry strayed from a tribute to military service to tell an audience in Waterloo, Iowa, that he’s running in part to restore the respect of the military to its civilian leaders.

“One of the reasons that I’m running for president is I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of the United States respects highly the president of the United States,” he said.

What is Perry talking about here? For one thing, this is not the type of sentence a candidate delivers off the cuff. It seems pretty clearly to be a deliberate, premeditated shot at President Obama as somehow lacking or illegitimate in his role as commander in  chief of the military.

[more at Salon]

Given how Perry is treating veterans, I am not sure why he thinks the military would care about his opinion.

—-

director of the Secretary of State’s elections division, said last week at a seminar in Austin that photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are not acceptable forms of military ID to vote, according to a recording provided by the Texas Democratic Party.

…

Not allowing holders of the VA card to vote would largely affect veterans who are young, homeless and traumatized by war, said Charlie Jones, head of Texas Democratic Veterans.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Vet-ID-holders-cannot-vote-1924290.php#ixzz1W7MfDIsK
(Reblogged from sarahlee310)
ryking: When Gov Perry talks about balancing the budget in Texas, remind his supporters that in his 2010-2011 budget, Texas was $6.6 billion in the red. Perry ACCEPTED $6.4 billion in federal stimulus (to fill 97% of his deficit gap) on the SAME DAY he blogged of the irresponsible bailouts from WDC. Another example of “talk vs walk” I am going to predict Rick Perry fervor is about to fizzle.

ryking:

When Gov Perry talks about balancing the budget in Texas, remind his supporters that in his 2010-2011 budget, Texas was $6.6 billion in the red.

Perry ACCEPTED $6.4 billion in federal stimulus (to fill 97% of his deficit gap) on the SAME DAY he blogged of the irresponsible bailouts from WDC.

Another example of “talk vs walk”

I am going to predict Rick Perry fervor is about to fizzle.

(Reblogged from diadoumenos)
“
Rick Perry’s secret to job creation is no secret at all: It’s the same recipe used in places like Mexico and Malaysia. Here, companies save millions they would otherwise have had to spend on responsibility. It’s a tradeoff: Give up on public schools, healthy air, and your Constitutional rights and you can have a job.
Geoff Berg - How Perry Created All Those jobs (via therecipe)

(Source: )

(Reblogged from sarahlee310)

PolitiFact Texas | Checking Rick Perry's speech today

(Reblogged from sarahlee310)

sarahlee310:

Rachel Maddow explaining the link between Rick Perry and the New Apostolic Reformation, a scary cult like organization with apocalyptic beliefs. (Part 1 of 2) (by CRUClEFICTION)  8-10-2011

Part Two is here and will be in my next post.

(Reblogged from sarahlee310)