Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

[Rubicant]

Romney can overturn Roe vs. Wade by appointing pro-life judges who are certain to overturn Roe vs. Wade if challenged in the court. But Romney says he has no litmus test for judges and also that he won’t support national legislation restricting abortion.

The problem is that he has had a very pro-choice position in the past when it was politically expedient and now a more moderate tone when it is politically expedient. It is perfectly reasonable to question his sincerity about his partial pro-life convictions. On issues relating to the budget and foreign diplomacy, Romney is not conservative in the pure sense but more of a “neo-conservative”.

Proceed with the Romney cheer-leading.

I understand that unexpected life changes can cause one to retire prematurely. But I wonder how often a Justice has chosen to retire while a politically opposing President has been in office.

 

[stinkcat_14]

My main point is that there isn’t much funding to begin with, so that a cut would not be significant and would not reduce the deficit. That’s why the Romney example of saying good-by to PBS funding and Big Bird is so silly.

Sesame Workshop has revenue of about $130 million per year, with about $7.9 million coming from the Federal Government. Total PBS spending is about $450 million per year. While it makes an interesting academic argument as to whether the federal government should be funding these activities, it is also pretty irrelevant either way. If we don’t cut defense, social security or medicare, we will never balance the budget. Those three programs alone count for over half of all federal government spending.

 

[meltzerboy]

Romney can overturn Roe vs. Wade by appointing pro-life judges who are certain to overturn Roe vs. Wade if challenged in the court. But Romney says he has no litmus test for judges and also that he won’t support national legislation restricting abortion.

The problem is that he has had a very pro-choice position in the past when it was politically expedient and now a more moderate tone when it is politically expedient. It is perfectly reasonable to question his sincerity about his partial pro-life convictions. On issues relating to the budget and foreign diplomacy, Romney is not conservative in the pure sense but more of a “neo-conservative”.

Proceed with the Romney cheer-leading.

No Romney cheer-leading for me. The appointment of conservative judges to the SCOTUS is the one thing I do trust Romney will follow through on. The litmus test is implicit by the fact that the judge’s writings, decisions, and dissents are generally known by means of an extensive paper trail, even if the judge hadn’t directly addressed the abortion issue. It is no accident that liberal Presidents appoint liberal judges and conservative Presidents appoint conservative judges. Of course, we don’t exactly know where Romney falls on the political spectrum but it is certain he will at least be more socially conservative than Obama, which is not much of a stretch.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Under no circumstances do I see Obama working with Republicans like Bill Clinton did after the Republican revolution. Zero percent chance, not even that high a percentage.

Actually, I see that as a good thing. Gridlock is a good thing. Look what happened when we had George Bush and republicans controlling both houses of congress, we got a war we didn’t pay for and socialized medicine and increased spending.

 

[He_Man]

Funny how I get a warning for my comments, but comments like this are completely fine with the moderators. I guess expressing critical thinking and a different point of view are not encouraged around here.

It’s especially interesting that you mention Massachusetts - the state where Mitt served, yet the majority of people there don’t support him. What does that say about Romney?

As far as living in Utah - you’d love that until one day you’re unemployed and your son or daughter gets sick and you have no insurance - leaving you at the mercy of a for profit company.

One of my best friends has been ill the last few years and he was raised in a very right wing environment. He was unable to get any health care because he and his wife were self-employed. Fortunately he can now get health care, but when he realized how sick America was in terms of making something that everyone should have a right to have access to into instead, a multi-billion dollar business, he could see the flaws in the GOP. He lives in the midwest, where he was told churches would provide assistance for him. Well guess what? Not one church offered to help him out with his health care. This whole thing that Fox News raves about is just not true.

And when the costs of the ACA prove too costly and our economy craters, what then? When the value of the dollar drops too low (thanks to quantitative easing) and our debt becomes untenable, there will be no entitlements.

You have to have a PRACTICAL way to accomplish what you and your friend want. That’s the problem with liberals (and at times, both parties0> The idea is not always bad. How to pay for it when we have a 16 trillion dollar debt is where you lose me. So how do we pay for it?

 

[He_Man]

Actually, I see that as a good thing. Gridlock is a good thing. Look what happened when we had George Bush and republicans controlling both houses of congress, we got a war we didn’t pay for and socialized medicine and increased spending.

Yep.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Yep.

Gridlock is a good thing. Look what happened when Obama owned the legislature. We got ObamaCare and an $800 billion failed stimulus package.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Gridlock is a good thing. Look what happened when Obama owned the legislature. We got ObamaCare and an $800 billion failed stimulus package.

In both the bush and obama case we got out of control spending and socialized medicine.

 

[He_Man]

Romney can overturn Roe vs. Wade by appointing pro-life judges who are certain to overturn Roe vs. Wade if challenged in the court. But Romney says he has no litmus test for judges and also that he won’t support national legislation restricting abortion.

The problem is that he has had a very pro-choice position in the past when it was politically expedient and now a more moderate tone when it is politically expedient. It is perfectly reasonable to question his sincerity about his partial pro-life convictions. On issues relating to the budget and foreign diplomacy, Romney is not conservative in the pure sense but more of a “neo-conservative”.

Proceed with the Romney cheer-leading.

I don’t see it as Romney cheerleading. If Jimmay Carter was running against Robert Mugabe, I’d have “Carter is Smarter” signs on my lawn. But it would be about stopping Mugabe first and foremost.

Obama is a 100% guaranteed loss for Catholics, and for his economic policies, which we have seen do nothing.

Romney at least gives us the possibility of success, or less failure.

Th most common theme for people supporting Obama on here is he wants to help those who need health insurance, or help the poor. But they cant address how to do that without continuing to detroy an already broken economy. He hasn’t done that yet. So ideals aside, how do we do that going forward?

 

[Caldera]

Former Top Aide to Hillary Clinton Endorses … Mitt Romney?

Gigi Georges, who used to be a top aide to Hillary Clinton when the current Secretary of State was a U.S. Senator, has come out in support of Mitt Romney just days before the election.

Here is her statement explaining the decision:

*“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”
*
foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/04/former-top-aide-to-hillary-clinton-endorses-mitt-romney/#more-98111

Nothing wrong with being honest.

 

[didymus]

I agree entirely. Will R/R work with the Dems? Not throwing it back at you, but I don’t see any real inclination to reach a hand across the aisle there either. The positions are just too far apart for compromise IMO.

What positions? Mitt doesn’t have any except getting elected.
The Weathervane will have no problem working with anybody.

 

[oldcelt]

What positions? Mitt doesn’t have any except getting elected.
The Weathervane will have no problem working with anybody.

I doubt he’ll care once he has President on his resume.

John

 

[meltzerboy]

What positions? Mitt doesn’t have any except getting elected.
The Weathervane will have no problem working with anybody.

Because if Romney gets elected, he’ll be working to get re-elected. Ironically similar to Obama, in a sense, Romney has become a perpetual campaigner albeit only marginally a better one than he was initially.

 

[meltzerboy]

I doubt he’ll care once he has President on his resume.

John

But how can we believe post #666, John?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Something for grins from Kevin Glass at Townhall:

"Just a lighthearted Sunday note if you’re taking your brain off politics and watching some football: Keep an eye on the Redskins-Panthers game, as the “Redskins Rule” is that the Redskins’ game success tracks closely with incumbent party success. So if the Redskins win, historically, the incumbent party will go on to future success. In fact, in 18 presidential contests since the Redskins began play in Washington, only once has this rule not held - in 2004, when President Bush defeated John Kerry despite a Redskins loss."

The Redskins lost. Obama is in trouble!

 

[Pork_Roll]

I don’t see it as Romney cheerleading. If Jimmay Carter was running against Robert Mugabe, I’d have “Carter is Smarter” signs on my lawn. But it would be about stopping Mugabe first and foremost.

I think there is a problem of always comparing things to the worst rather than what is ideal. Romney is way better than Obama, but so is Bill/Hilary Clinton. I’d rather vote for who is best than to mindlessly follow the exaggerations and half-truths of the GOP and democrats about the other guy. But that is me. Of course voting for the lesser of evils is reasonable, but we need to be sure that our faith isn’t being “leavened” by the GOP and democrat agenda but rather our Catholic faith leavens the parties and brings both parties to the truth. Romney isn’t close enough to the ideal to warrant my support.

I’m less concerned about the HHS mandate than I am about catholic institutions and families effectively promulgating the faith.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Polls: Ties in MI, MN, NH, OH, PA

Pew: Romney holds turn out edge ahead of vote

This afternoon, Pew Research is out with its final poll of the 2012 campaign. It finds that Romney continues to hold the edge on voter turnout. By solid margins, Romney supporters are more engaged in the campaign, are following news of the campaign closely and are more likely to vote. It also finds that the Democrats big party ID advantage from 2008 has collapsed. In 2008, among registered voters Democrats held a 12-point lead on party identification. This year, the Democrat lead is just 5 points. That isn’t enough to withstand Romney’s turnout advantage.

Pew’s head-to-head number has Obama leading Romney by 3 points, 48-45. Of course, this shows Obama underperforming, as Democrats have a 4 point edge in the sample. If Democrats only have a 5 point edge among all registered voters, its hard to see how the actual voting electorate will give Democrats a 4 point edge, given the higher propensity of Republicans to vote.

Oddly, Pew takes the 4% undecideds and splits them evenly between the two candidates. This allows the to broadcast a 50-47 Obama lead, hitting the critical 50% threshold that has eluded Obama in most polling this year. It is highly unlikely, though, that undecideds break evenly.

Romney maintains a 3 point lead among Independents, which couple with stronger GOP turnout could provide the necessary edge on election day. Indeed, Republicans hold significant advantages on enthusiasm. They have an 8 point advantage among voters who have “thought a lot about the election,” 87% to 79%. The GOP has a 7 point advantage among likely voters following the campaign closely, 61% to 54%. And among those definitely planning to vote, the GOP has a 6 point edge. 92% of Romney supporters say they are definitely voting, against 86% of Obama supporters.

Obama has tried to make up their enthusiasm deficit by focusing considerable resources on early voting. But, Obama’s lead among early voters in this poll is just 2 points, 48-46. In 2008, Obama had a massive edge in early voting.

Perhaps most interesting is that Romney leads by 2 points among Catholics, 49-47. Obama won Catholics by 9 points in 2008. The 11-point swing away from him may be the decisive factor in Upper Midwest states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. It may also give Romney an advantage in Pennsylvania.

If Pew’s findings hold through Tuesday and Romney has the turnout edge, he is well on his way to victory.

Do not believe in a Catholic vote but I do not think any presidential candidate has won with out winning the majority of Catholics

Democrat stronghold Cuyahoga county, Ohio in person voting is down 14% through yesterday

Getting used to it? CNN’s Candy Crowley says ‘President Romney’

 

[ringil]

Aby, can we cut out the “democrat”???

It’s the Democratic Party. No one around here is typing Republicon Party?

I’m assuming no.

What is the point of name calling? It only detracts from the potential veracity of your posts.

 

[tskrobacz]

In the New Testament, caring for the poor in our communities was left up to the Christian community (what we call the Church.). In the old Testament you had a Theocratic kingdom, I don’t think that is what we want in the US.

It is interesting to read in Caritas in Veritate – “Charity in Truth” (2009), that the relation of governments to society has grown more complex: “

I doubt the wisdom of Nemehiah and the economic nature of so many of Jesus’ teachings would agree. The government must create a fair and just society (including programs for the poor). In a pluralistic society, such as ours, the Christian community alone is clearly insufficient by itself. This is not a we vs them, it is always about us.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Aby, can we cut out the “democrat”???

It’s the Democratic Party. No one around here is typing Republicon Party?

I’m assuming no.

What is the point of name calling? It only detracts from the potential veracity of your posts.

I am not using the word in a derogatory way

Do you have an issue with the word democrat party or democrat to describe a member of the party?

I think I have you seen you call the republican party GOP which was used by Southern democrats as a remark to the party that bought slaves freedom and the name was not given status in the party till 1888. Language changes

Media Matters has said the word ‘democrat party’ has been used by WSJ, New York Times, bbc, AP, Chicago Tribune

Governor Jon Corzine, Joe Biden and Barack Obama have used the word democrat