comMITTed to Romney!

[ Editor's Commentary: Kudos to New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond for not dignifying the presence of the most pro abortion President to ever occupy the Oval Office in connection with his scheduled speech at Xavier University. The Archbishop was not invited to Obama's speech at the school and my understanding is that he would not have attended the speech even had he been invited.

We need to maintain a principled resistance to this failed President and his ruinous policies and "being otherwise occupied" when President Frequent Flier blows into town is a good start.

~~John Cronin~~]

FOXNEWS.COM

President Obama will be in New Orleans Saturday to remember the devastation of Hurricane Katrina five years after the storm roared ashore, but the location the White House has picked for his remarks is stirring an old controversy — and it has nothing to do with storm or the rebuilding of the Gulf.

Some Catholics don’t agree with the fact that the president is being allowed to speak at Xavier University, a Catholic institution, because it is giving a platform to someone who is very publically opposed to the teachings of the Catholic church.

They argue that his positions on issues of life — abortion and stem cell research specifically — means that he should not be given the chance to speak so openly at a Catholic university.

It all goes back to a 2004 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) statement on “Catholics in Political Life.” It reads in part, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The controversy similarly swirled when the pro-choice and pro-stem cell research president was invited to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement address in 2009, where he was also given an honorary degree.

While neither the Notre Dame speech nor the Xavier one were set up to be outright political events, some argue there can always be a political dimension and that in his commencement address the president did bring up both abortion and stem cells.

“The situations are similar in that President Obama is choosing a Catholic environment to provide a platform for his political activity, and the U.S. Bishops have expressed concern about a Catholic institution being used for purposes by individuals who are clearly opposed to Catholic teaching,” said Patrick Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society a lay Catholic educational group.

Reilly also mentioned there’s the possibility of becoming political and argued it’s a bigger issue that Xavier is not taking a stand, “[The] Greater concern about Catholic institutions trying to simply be a neutral platform, when they ought to be actively promoting Christian values,” he said.

The USCCB is the organization that issued that 2004 statement, however in matters like these, as with the Notre Dame case, the group doesn’t take a stand on specific matters, and leaves that to the local archdiocese.The issue delves into a bit of church hierarchy, but ultimately the USCCB, a national group, defers to the local jurisdiction and wouldn’t supercede their views. That allows for the local church officials to interpret the 2004 USCCB statement’s meaning.

New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond will not be attending Obama’s speech at Xavier and has no plans to meet with the president.

“He was not in any way consulted, invited — nor will he attend the event with President Obama at Xavier,” said Sarah McDonald, Director of Communications for Archdiocese of New Orleans.

As far as invitations go, university officials say, all questions regarding invitation process go to the White House.

The archbishop will be taking part in other services that day that were already planned.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/26/obama-violating-catholic-bishops-position-katrina-speech-location#ixzz0xiQ1fCxh

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/07/21/romney-on-obama-s-push-for-health-reform-slow-down.aspx

By: Katie Connolly

In the last two weeks, political commentators have expressed doubts over President Obama’s time frame for healthcare reform. Meanwhile, even some Democrat lawmakers appear to be getting cold feet. In response, Obama is relentlessly pitching his plan. He has spoken about healthcare on eight out of the last nine days, and he’s scheduled to hold a town hall meeting on the topic this Thursday. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is one of the few politicians in the country with first hand experience of steering major health care reform through the legislative process. The reforms he enacted in Massachusetts have been critizied for being costly, but they’ve also managed to extend coverage to a significant number of uninsured people. By 2007, the proportion of uninsured people in Massachusetts was the lowest in the country.

I spoke to Romney about his experience with healthcare reform this morning. His cautionary words for Obama? Slow down. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:

What do you think needs to happen over the next couple of weeks if President Obama’s deadline for healthcare reform is to be met?

I think the President ought to hit the reset button. I think it is critical that he have the participation, involvement, and support of people on both sides of the aisle, as well as people in various sectors of the health economy. If we are going to have a dramatic shift in the nature of so large a part of our economy then it needs to be something that has been thoroughly vetted and has received great support. Out of a desire to move very quickly, while his support is highest, he has skipped the critical steps of educating, involving, and evolving his own plans to meet the perspectives of the great majority of our citizens.

It sounds like you are encouraging the President to slow down. Aren’t there risks in delaying?

He’s in a very difficult position. We faced a very similar question [in Massachusetts] as we began our process. We spent over two years putting together a health care plan and then building support for it on both sides of the aisle - working with hospitals, providers, doctors, business groups, labor groups, advocates for the poor. We involved all of these parties, and it took a long time, but what we ended up with was a bill that passed the legislature - if you combine the House and the Senate - 198 to 2.

What lessons can be gleaned from your experience in Massachusetts?

After we crafted the architecture of our plan, the first person I went to was Ted Kennedy. He and I met numerous times and what we fashioned was not perfect in either one of our eyes, but we worked together, because only together could we know that we would have the support of all the parties necessary to make it work.

The states are laboratories of democracy. Well, our state passed a bill. It’s been in place now for several years. Have they studied it? Have they spoken with the Republicans and Democrats in Masssachusetts? Have they spoken with hospitals? Doctors? Have they sent the GAO there to take it apart to see what is working well and what is not? Nobody has given me a call, except Republicans. I’ve received no calls from Democrats saying what do you think about it? What would you do differently if you were to do it today? There’s a whole series of things I’d do differently. And yet, there seems to be such a rush to act. I understand that President Obama wants to get this done in his first term, but more important than getting it done in the first year is getting it done right, before he is out of office. There is time here to get it done right.

In terms of the reform proposals before Congress, what do you see that you like and dislike so far?

I’m not happy that the President wants to provide a so-called public option. There is no need for the government to become an insurance company. I’m convinced, as many before me have said, that this is a step towards a single payer system; that it will result in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of subsidies down the road and a new entitlement, which is one of the last things America needs right now. On the other hand I am happy that he is actually working to reform healthcare. It’s important for us to get everyone insured. It’s important that there be an effort made to reduce the excessive inflation in the healthcare sector.

How well do the current proposals deal with reducing costs?

The legislation has almost nothing to do with cost reduction. Nothing I have seen in the bills that are being discussed by the Democratic leadership suggests that there will be a significant change in health inflation.

This is an extraordinarily important topic and one for which there is a great deal of information around the world. Normally, if this were private enterprise, you would spend a great deal of time with brilliant analysts, looking at alternatives, evaluating lessons from foreign places, and perhaps even experimenting with some alternatives before unleashing them on the entire US economy. Healthcare reform is a matter that should be focused on allowing our citizens to have better health at more reasonable cost, as opposed to being thought of as a political success or failure. We really can’t afford a lot of trillion dollar mistakes.

What do you think the President’s message to the American people should be when he speaks on Wednesday night?

I don’t presume to give the President advice. I can say that the campaign promise that President Obama made to work on a bipartisan basis and to change the atmosphere in Washington is something which I think America is still hoping to see, particularly in health care. It is just not consistent with his original vision to anticipate jamming through a piece of legislation which has numerous flaws, and which can only receive the support of his own party if members of that party have had their arms twisted into knots. That is not going to be the right kind of answer to America’s health care needs.

Share on Facebook

Share This

REV. WRIGHT:  The Man Once Credited for Obama becoming Christian

According to the 1995 book ‘Dreams from My Father’  written by Barack Obama, he described the first time he heard Rev. Wright give a sermon, and told how the sermon, combined with his uplifting experience of the rich humanity of the people in the congregation, so moved him that he became a Christian believer and joined Wright’s church.

Yesterday at Obama’s Notre Dame Commencement address, he made the following statement.

“You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college.  And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it was quite an eclectic crew, Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself  drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ“.

Is Obama changing his own history?  If so, why is it not being pointed out along the lines of Pelosi.

Share on Facebook

Share This

At the end of the first 100 days of the Obama administration, the left have transformed into a tremendous slumber. But slowly, a few are starting to wake up and sense that the Emperor is still not wearing any clothes.

A few brave souls, have noticed that the driving talking points amongst leftists during dinner & water cooler conversation was digging the claws into the performance of former President Bush.  Under Obama, the trend has gone and one such article of brave criticism of this fact came from the Detroit Free Press LAURA VARON BROWN

Parties were more fun when George W. Bush was president. You could debate, argue even, praise and condemn, throw darts and laurels and solve the world’s problems over a bottle of wine.

No more. At least not in my circles. If you want to stop a conversation in its tracks, just question something President Barack Obama has said or done. It’s not open to debate — and I don’t think that’s healthy, for the country or the president.
It’s especially unsettling for a free speech girl like me. The First Amendment is important — but lately, it feels like my right of self-expression is being squashed.

One example: Obama’s comment to Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show,” comparing his bowling abilities to someone in the Special Olympics.

Can you imagine the uproar had Bush said that? He’d be banished from bowling alleys for eternity. His bowling average and IQ would have immediately been compared in Twitter messages demanding his resignation.

Detroit Free Press LAURA VARON BROWN

One of the great mantras that Obama sprouted, was that he inherited an economic mess from President Bush.  After 100 days, a new administration has fairly taken charge and the captain is most certainly President Obama at the controls. The LA Times also agreed with that, and published this article It’s all on Obama now.

“It is now absolutely his economy,” said Paul Light, a New York University professor who specializes in presidential transitions. “I don’t think that the public will continue to believe that this was all George W. Bush’s doing. And every day that goes by, it becomes more Obama’s than Bush’s.”

Ever since his inauguration, Obama has nurtured the idea that responsibility for grim economic conditions rested with former President Bush. As recently as Wednesday, Obama sought that political cover when it was announced that the economy had shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter of the year.

Speaking at a town hall meeting near St. Louis, he said: “Now, we’ve got a lot of work to do, because on our first day in office we found challenges of unprecedented size and scope.”

But the events of the last week made Bush seem less relevant, presidential experts and political strategists said. As Obama’s imprint on the economy grows, so does his ownership of the issue.

LA TIMES It’s all on Obama now.

Even comedians are starting to experience a recession of material, ever since Obama stepped into the White House and the ‘Obama Fan Club’ The LA Times are starting to notice.

“If you’re a comedian and you die and go to heaven, Bill Clinton is your president,” said Robert J. Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. “If you’re a comedian and you die and go to hell, Barack Obama is your president.”

Funny Thing about Obama LA TIMES

There are some Obama sycophants and supporters who feel he is beyond criticism, they do their best to squash any questions over the lack of Emperor attire.   When the left remain mute on criticism directed towards resident Obama, they remove themselves from the political process.  They inadvertently transform themselves into a sad form of self exile, forgetting the freedom of the First Amendment.  They can spot hypocrisy no matter where it resides, and should have plenty to complain about.  No one can keep living in denial forever. 

 I look forward to the left coming out of their shells and joining the rest of the population once again.  We miss your criticism, we could use it now.

Share on Facebook

Share This

FACT CHECK: Obama’s job, deficit claims are iffy

Obama:  Trust Me

OBAMA: “We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” - from news conference.

THE FACTS: This assertion is dubious on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama’s stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.

But Obama’s number is murky, at best. The White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama’s number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public. Until that formula is announced - probably in the coming week or so - there’s no way to assess its accuracy.

Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That’s because Obama has lumped “jobs saved” in with “jobs created.” Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.

Share on Facebook

Share This

As I watch Washington politics I am not easily given to rage.

Washington politics is a game and selfishness, out-sized egos and corruption are predictable.

But over the last week I find myself in a fury.

The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation — improving big city public school education — get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship (Romney has said “Some kids, particularly certain minority populations, are falling behind. Horace Mann said that education was the great equalizer. But in too many of our schools today, that is not being achieved. I believe that the failure of education in urban schools is the civil rights issue of our generation.” –Source: 2006 State of the State Address, January 2006). If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America’s black and Hispanic students.

This is critical to our nation’s future in terms of workforce preparation to compete in a global economy but also to fulfill the idea of racial equality by providing a real equal opportunity for all young people who are willing to work hard to succeed.

In a politically calculated dance step the Obama team first indicated that they wanted the Opportunity Scholarship Program to continue for students lucky enough to have won one of the vouchers. The five-year school voucher program is scheduled to expire after the school year ending in June 2010. Secretary Duncan said in early March that it didn’t make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning…those kids need to stay in their school.”

And all along the administration indicated that pending evidence that this voucher program or any other produces better test scores for students they were willing to fight for it. The president has said that when it comes to better schools he is open to supporting “what works for kids.” That looked like a level playing field on which to evaluate the program and even possibly expanding the program.

But last week Secretary Duncan announced that he will not allow any new students to enter the D.C. voucher program. In fact, he had to take back the government’s offer of scholarships to 200 students who had won a lottery to get into the program starting next year. His rationale is that if the program does not win new funding from Congress then those students might have to go back to public school in a year.

He does not want to give the students a chance for a year in a better school? That does not make sense if the students and their families want that life-line of hope. It does not make sense if there is a real chance that the program might win new funding as parents, educators and politicians rally to undo the “bigotry of low expectations” and open doors of opportunity — wherever they exist — for more low-income students.

And now Secretary Duncan has applied a sly, political check-mate for the D.C. voucher plan.

With no living, breathing students profiting from the program to give it a face and stand and defend it the Congress has little political pressure to put new money into the program. The political pressure will be coming exclusively from the teacher’s unions who oppose the vouchers, just as they oppose No Child Left Behind and charter schools and every other effort at reforming public schools that continue to fail the nation’s most vulnerable young people, low income blacks and Hispanics.

The National Education Association and other teachers’ unions have put millions into Democrats’ congressional campaigns because they oppose Republican efforts to challenge unions on their resistance to school reform and specifically their refusal to support ideas such as performance-based pay for teachers who raise students’ test scores.

By going along with Secretary Duncan’s plan to hollow out the D.C. voucher program this president, who has spoken so passionately about the importance of education, is playing rank politics with the education of poor children. It is an outrage.

This voucher programs is unique in that it takes no money away from the beleaguered District of Columbia Public Schools. Nationwide, the strongest argument from opponents of vouchers is that it drains hard-to-find dollars from public schools that educate the majority of children.

But Congress approved the D.C. plan as an experiment and funded it separately from the D.C. school budget. It is the most generous voucher program in the nation, offering $7,500 per child to help with tuition to a parochial or private school.

With that line of attack off the table, critics of vouchers pointed out that even $7,500 is not enough to pay for the full tuition to private schools where the price of a year’s education can easily go beyond $20,000. But nearly 8,000 students applied for the vouchers. And a quarter of them, 1,714 children, won the lottery and took the money as a ticket out of the D.C. public schools.

The students, almost all of them black and Hispanic, patched together the voucher money with scholarships, other grants and parents willing to make sacrifices to pay their tuition.

What happened, according to a Department of Education study, is that after three years the voucher students scored 3.7 months higher on reading than students who remained in the D.C. schools. In addition, students who came into the D.C. voucher program when it first started had a 19 month advantage in reading after three years in private schools.

It is really upsetting to see that the Heritage Foundation has discoverd that 38 percent of the members of Congress made the choice to put their children in private schools. Of course, Secretary Duncan has said he decided not to live in Washington, D.C. because he did not want his children to go to public schools there. And President Obama, who has no choice but to live in the White House, does not send his two daughters to D.C. public schools, either. They attend a private school, Sidwell Friends, along with two students who got there because of the voucher program.

This reckless dismantling of the D.C. voucher program does not bode well for arguments to come about standards in the effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. It does not speak well of the promise of President Obama to be the “Education President,’ who once seemed primed to stand up for all children who want to learn and especially minority children.

And its time for all of us to get outraged about this sin against our children.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they’re dealing with a weak president.”   POLITICO

Share on Facebook

Share This

AUDIO EXCERPT: OBAMA SPEECH TO CIA (April 20th 2009)

Langley, Virginia 4:02PM EST
President Obama has just addressed the CIA Headquarters Langley VA. In his speech (Audio Provided) he spends the time justifying why the “Top Secret” integration memos were released. Obama also explained why the CIA integration methods have been discontinued under his watch. In short, Obama told the CIA is now poised to kill them with ‘Kindness’. Someone needs to remind Obama that our enemy didn’t play by the same rules when Nick Berg had his head cut off.
DOWNLOAD FULL SPEECH

Share on Facebook

Share This

Paulee asked for me to put this up for everyone to see, so here it is…
Sorry I grabbed the wrong one before Paulee…

Share on Facebook

Share This

When Mitt used to say, “I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington,” I believed him.  Here is a man with the background, knowledge and skills to effect change in the economy, and HE KNOWS IT!  Ann Romney used to say “I’ve never seen anyone work harder than this guy.”  It must be really hard for him to sit by, knowing his expertise and skill in turning things around isn’t being used at such a critical time.

Some excerpts from a great new interview with Mitt.  Notice his first interview after the election is with Fortune, an economy magazine.

Romney: Obama Must be “Educator-in-Chief”

“Any management advice for the next president? How does he rally a depressed nation to meet the challenges we face?

He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. (Good idea, let someone with some actual financial expertise and experience have a turn in 4 years)  He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party.

The unions have helped Barack Obama. They will hope to be paid back….This legislation would do more to harm America’s long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine.

Right now, the auto industry is on life support, and its prospects look extremely dim. But they don’t need to be. The industry could be turned around.(Hmm… I wonder who could do that?)

There’s strong populist sentiment against free trade deals. Given that, how does an American president move forward on this?

I can only hope the President abandons the populist current, which seems to be growing in our country. (Yea, that seems likely)”

It’s great to see Mitt back out there already!

Share on Facebook

Share This

George Hussein Onyango Obama

UK’s Telegraph reports that Barack Obama’s brother is living in Poverty…

From the article:

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate’s half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

“No-one knows who I am,” he told the magazine, before claiming: “I live here on less than a dollar a month.”

and

He told the magazine: “I live like a recluse, no-one knows I exist.”

Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.

“If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed,” he said.

and

For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college.

He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.

The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a “beautiful boy with a rounded head”.

Of their second meeting, George Obama said: “It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger.”

and

“Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don’t even arrest you they just shoot you.

“I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists.”

Commentary:
It’s incredibly amazing and hypocritical of some in the media that went after Mitt Romney’s Grandfather’s polygamy when we have a presumptive nominee of a major party who’s father was a polygamist and has multitudes of children living in poverty in Africa. Why isn’t Barack taking care of his own destitute family members???

Share on Facebook

Share This

Obama and Troops in Iraq

I just think that this picture is so wrong. Why are the troops “lined up” to see this man? He’s not President of the United States, he’s a simple junior Senator from Illinois. Grrr.

Share on Facebook

Share This

This is, by far, the absolute most shocking video about Barack Hussein Obama I have seen yet. I wish I could have embedded the video here for your convenience, but there was no way to do that for this one (that I could figure out, at least). So click on the link below for a real reality check. [Editors Note From Ann Marie: I was able to get the full embed code that was shown below that Amanda could not find]. Prepare for the worst; you may want to sit down for this. . .

After you’re done watching the clip and you’ve come to your senses (yes, that’s it. . . inhale, exhale–now pick your jaw up off the floor), forward this link to everyone you know–particularly any liberals or moderates who support, or who are even thinking about supporting this man. Too much is at stake. It’s our job to get this information to our fellow Americans since the mainstream media certainly will not. Expose their “teflon candidate?” Their “messiah?”  It’ll just never happen. It’s all up to us now to stop the radical Barack Obama from taking over our great country. We fight on!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Brief article over at HOT AIR touts Mitt Romney for the vice presidential slot.
The article talks about the strength that Romney would bring to the ticket because of his mastery of business and economics. If Mitt is not picked for VP, I think this is what needs to happen.

The McCain campaign needs to send a message to conservatives, IMHO, in two areas of vital importance, or they will not be pleased with the results they get at at the ballot box in November.

1. We need an iron-clad promise to secure our borders and to enforce the existing laws on immigration.

2. We need a comprehensive economic policy that includes making the Bush tax cuts permanent, killing the death tax, balancing the budget and moving to reform the bloated entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt this country.

Failing to accomplish this, the feckless leadership we have been getting from the Republican Party at the national level, will usher in eight bleak years of Democratic rule.

I know I am repeating myself, but I will say it again. Unless grassroots Republicans rise up and retake this party in order to guide it back toward the conservative principles that made the Party and the country great, we are going to lose this election. If there isn’t two cents worth of difference between the Democrat’s platform and the Republican’s platform, who cares which party wins? Obviously the career politicians do, but I am talking about the voters who have to pay for all of this.

We are not getting our money’s worth!

~~John Cronin~~

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/01/pew-mccain-gaining-at-the-center/

The economy will present a critical test for McCain. He has worked on building economic chops, and his campaign has notable assistance in this area from Steve Forbes and even Mitt Romney. Obama’s stumble on capital-gains tax increases could help narrow this gap, but thus far the McCain campaign hasn’t offered any focus on that gaffe from the April 16th debate.
McCain could use a well-recognized hand on economics as a running mate. I’ve suggested that Romney could fill that role, although Allahpundit has been less enthusiastic. Romney did a great job with fundraising in 2007 and could help fill a critical gap there as well. Now that Jeremiah Wright has managed to splatter himself all over Obama, not too many people would worry about Mormons in the general election. Mormons aren’t known for asking that God damn America or promulgating weird conspiracy theories about HIV and government-sponsored genocides. Wright’s demagoguery has taken the Mormon issue off the table, if Obama wins the nomination.

Share on Facebook

Share This

It seems that every generation has a politician that young voters fall in love with. In the 1930’s and 40’s, it was Franklin Roosevelt. In the 1950’s it was Dwight Eisenhower. In the 1960’s it was John Kennedy. The 1970’s was the era of our withdrawal from Vietnam and the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon and so there was no politician to fall in love with in that decade. The 1980’s saw Ronald Reagan put together one of the broadest and most successful political coalitions this country has ever seen and people still remember Reagan fondly. To this day every Republican politician must pay his respects to Reagan’s legacy. The 1990’s, for the Democrats, saw a segment of the voting population fall in love with Bill Clinton, although he never went north of 50% in his two presidential elections. It seems that over half the country was immune to his charms. The first two national elections of the 21st century were very controversial and neither Bush nor Gore nor Kerry are the kind of politician that voters fall in love with.

Now comes the election year of 2008 and a new and inexperienced generation of voters have fallen in love with Obama. The old saying holds that “Love is blind” and it will be fascinating to see if Obama’s 20 year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, a past member of the Weather Underground and self confessed bomber who says that he only regrets that he “didn’t do more” during his days as a violent radical, will at some point splash some cold water into the faces of his supporters and cause them to come to their senses.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/
Obama_Problem_is_older_voters.html

By: Ben Smith POLITICO.COM

Carrie Budoff Brown reports that Obama was asked about the exit polls at an avail (his second this week) in New Albany, IN.

“I have to say if you look at and I know my staff has talked about this: If you look at the numbers, in fact, our problem has less to do with white working class voters. In fact, the problem is that, to the extent there is a problem, is that the older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton,” he said.

“And I think, you know, part of that is they’ve got a track record of voting for not just Senator Clinton but also her husband. And, you know, we want to make sure that they know that on issues that are of importance to them, like prescription drugs or pension and retirement security that I’ve got a strong track record on those issues and very specific plans to make sure they’re getting the kinds of help that they need. And, you know, if we do that effectively, which we have tried to do in all the states, then I think that we will end up doing very well here in Indiana.”
He was also asked about the criticism that he can’t close the deal.

“The way we are going to close the deal is by winning. And right now we are winning,” he said.
Also, a bit of bravado in response to suggestions that he’s not tough enough:

“I know that people like to talk tough and use a lot of rhetoric about fighting. I have always believed that if you are tough, you don’t have to talk about it,” he said.

Share on Facebook

Share This