Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[Ridgerunner]

I have not heard of it, but I’ll google it. Thanks for the reference.

Reminds me just a bit of an old country practice around here. Genuine country hillbillies insist on taking their children and grandchildren out to work with them, regardless of age. Early on, they also put the kid to work. Maybe just pulling a few weeds. Maybe just having them “help” by handing the parent or grandparent a tool. Maybe just chasing some heifers out of a lot they would have run out of anyway as soon as the gate was opened. Something. Anything to get the kid involved in work, to show the kid that work is what they ought to do and that it’s something they CAN do.

Some of these who say poor children have no work exposure can be said equally well of middle class people. Part of it can’t be helped very easily. Long ago, a garage operator could (and did) take his kids to work. A farmer could, and did, and most still do. When I was a kid, it was common for people who had their own businesses, stores or offices to bring their kids into the place. Maybe all they did was lick envelopes or stamps or sweep, but it was something. And meanwhile, the kid saw customers come and go, heard what they said, knew that people wanted things and that the object of work is to give them what they want and to be repaid for doing that. People with restaurants’ kids worked in them before child labor laws were strictly enforced against that. I picked strawberries for money when I was no more than five years old, and bucked bales starting at 11 or 12 for money. Can’t do that now, of course, and it’s too bad, in my opinion.

Nowadays, it’s tough for people of any class to expose kids to actual adult work, and it’s impossible for kids under age 16 to earn anything by working. I don’t think Gingrich expressed the core of this problem very well, and certainly not as broadly as I would, but I don’t see why the concept is so terrible.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

gallup.com/fvideo.aspx?i=H5WWIzp90Mw-Sm2xw5NZkgaa​

Worth considering. I think with all the fighting we have going on in the GOP primary process, Obama remains the favorite to win next November.

He has a 47% approval rating, which really shocks me…and Bush had similar approval ratings at this time in the process and he obviously won re-election.

We will see how things look after the GOP gets a firm candidate, but right now it does not look very good. Sadly.

Further complicating this is the fact that Romney looks like the likely candidate and I am guessing he will not poll any higher than McCain, so the election will be tighter, but will more than likely end with the same outcome as the last election.

With the pain this nation has suffered, Obama’s approval should be in the 30s, the fact that it is so high really tells the tale for the next election since so many people just do not blame Obama for the nation’s troubles.

Sigh.

But I think Obama will win again, just because the GOP candidates are all so bad. I’ll list some of my personal problems with each:

Gingrich: If he doesn’t keep his marriage vows which are much more important than what he is saying about politics, then why would he keep his word about what he will do in office?

Romney: Can’t decide what he wants to believe. especially with abortion, and that is not a good sign.

Huntsman: Who?

Santorum: I like him for gay marriage and abortion, but every where else he is too right-wing for me. Very conservative in everything you can imagine.

Cain: Doesn’t seem very smart. I don’t know if he knows what to do in office.

Perry: Can’t figure out what programs to cut. Doesn’t know what he will do. All he knows is Obama is “socialist” and that’s bad. Or so it seems.

Bachmann: Way too right-wing politically. I don’t think she even really cares about abortion or gay marriage either.

Paul: he is libertarian, so he already starts out bad. I like his opposition to abortion, but I feel like it’s just so it can be made a state “right”. Plus I doubt he is against gay marriage.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Sigh.

But I think Obama will win again, just because the GOP candidates are all so bad. I’ll list some of my personal problems with each:

Gingrich: If he doesn’t keep his marriage vows which are much more important than what he is saying about politics, then why would he keep his word about what he will do in office?

Romney: Can’t decide what he wants to believe. especially with abortion, and that is not a good sign.

Huntsman: Who?

Santorum: I like him for gay marriage and abortion, but every where else he is too right-wing for me. Very conservative in everything you can imagine.

Cain: Doesn’t seem very smart. I don’t know if he knows what to do in office.

Perry: Can’t figure out what programs to cut. Doesn’t know what he will do. All he knows is Obama is “socialist” and that’s bad. Or so it seems.

Bachmann: Way too right-wing politically. I don’t think she even really cares about abortion or gay marriage either.

Paul: he is libertarian, so he already starts out bad. I like his opposition to abortion, but I feel like it’s just so it can be made a state “right”. Plus I doubt he is against gay marriage.

Romney was 100% prolife as governor (despite not having campaigned that way).

Even if he is lukewarm, he is several orders of magnitude better than Obama on the subject.

I think any of the 4 major candidates would clean Obama’s clock

No President has won reelection when unemployment was above 7.4% (not a 100% sure of the .4, but you get the idea.)

Unemployment is at 8.5% (with the seasonal Christmas hires). Real unemployment is at 14-15%.

 

[_Abyssinia]

seekerz:

With pleasure:

*Santorum, sort of denying negatively stereotyping black people, but negatively stereotyping some “bl-l-l” segment of society just the same:

youtube.com/watch?v=_dUqYnbS6m4

This Mediaite writer, a self described liberal, didn’t hear “blacks” in Santorum’s speech.

I would note that Santorum’s shoestring campaign lends credibility to the idea that he hasn’t seen the video. When I tried to call Santorum’s campaign for comment, I got a voicemail message, and the inbox was full. I emailed the campaign as well then, but it was the general press email. I’ve since emailed their communications team. I’ve got no vested interest in defending Rick Santorum, but it sounds to me like he just stumbled in his sentence, and made a vocalization akin to an ‘um’ or an ‘uh.’ There’s no hard K sound, and ‘black people’ doesn’t fit the context.

Last Wednesday Santorum said on Fox news:

“If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of – blah – came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t," Santorum said. “And I can tell you, … I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black.’ … I think sometimes you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt if it’s a little bit of a blurred word.”

His words were unclear and the context had nothing to do with race.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Romney was 100% prolife as governor (despite not having campaigned that way).

Even if he is lukewarm, he is several orders of magnitude better than Obama on the subject.

I think any of the 4 major candidates would clean Obama’s clock

No President has won reelection when unemployment was above 7.4% (not a 100% sure of the .4, but you get the idea.)

Unemployment is at 8.5% (with the seasonal Christmas hires). Real unemployment is at 14-15%.

er, about the Romney thing, I would disagree. I mean, didn’t he repeal his own veto for not allowing the morning after pill in Massachusetts in 2006, 2 years after he supposedly became pro-life? Or am I mixing up days of facts?

But I mean, people are going to look at the Republican who wins and be like, “Wow, this guy is pretty conservative. too conservative for me” (I say this as a moderate on the economy). Then they’ll look at Obama and be like, “He’s not overly liberal on the economy, so why not him?” I think it’ll be close, but I can’t see a very conservative Republican winning, even after Obama has made our economy a humongous problem.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Believe this if you like - perhaps it seems so when compared to the Party of Death, even tho the GOP commitment to ending abortion was practically non-existent during the 6 years they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. I know this is an old argument and Republicans have tried to justify it, but I’m not buying it, nor interested in hearing the rebuttals again. Someone needs to capture the pro-life vote, and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear. You see, we are so desperate now, we are willing to close our eyes and grab hold of anything just as long as it doesn’t come from the “left.”

I wonder what rights the unborn will have and what dignity of life we will all enjoy as more and more personal liberty is taken away by both parties and Congress cedes our sovereignty to the global bureaucrats and their pillage of the planet. The social issues will not matter much at that point and then we can all remember that the GOP helped lead us toward the one-worldism that both parties seem so intent upon.

George bush was not completely pro life, he was in favor of limited abortion, i.e. restricting abortion. He did pass many pro life laws:

lifenews.com/2009/01/16/nat-4750/

Abortion rates fell during his presidency.

In fact the most recent data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute  (research arm of Planned Parenthood) indicate that abortions fell during George W. Bush's presidency.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute between 2000 and 2005 the number of abortions declined from 1,312,990 to 1,206,200 (a decline of 8.1%, data obtained from all 50 states)....

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute the abortion rate (abortions per thousand women between 15 and 44) between 2000 and 2005 declined from 21.3 to 19.4.

According to the Centers for Disease Control between 2000 and 2005 the number of abortions declined from 842,553 to 818,196 (a decline of 2.9% for the 46 states reporting data both years).

According to the Centers for Disease Control the abortion rate (abortions per thousand women between 15 and 44) between 2000 and 2005 declined from 16 to 15.

jillstanek.com/archives/2009/05/correction_abor.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sigh.

But I think Obama will win again, just because the GOP candidates are all so bad. I’ll list some of my personal problems with each:

Gingrich: If he doesn’t keep his marriage vows which are much more important than what he is saying about politics, then why would he keep his word about what he will do in office? I am more concerned about Obama KEEPING his word on abortion and his plans for my utility bills than I am about Gingrich’s love life. Besides, Obama is clearly lying about his “support for marriage”.

Romney: Can’t decide what he wants to believe. especially with abortion, and that is not a good sign. He can’t be anything other than prolife in action or he won’t have a base.

Huntsman: Who? Agreed

Santorum: I like him for gay marriage and abortion, but every where else he is too right-wing for me. Very conservative in everything you can imagine. ** Santorum is the most likely of all candidates to follow the Social Encyclicals. One should read them.**

Cain: Doesn’t seem very smart. I don’t know if he knows what to do in office.Moot point. He’s out.

Perry: Can’t figure out what programs to cut. Doesn’t know what he will do. All he knows is Obama is “socialist” and that’s bad. Or so it seems.** Well, he’s at least right on one thing, then. **

Bachmann: Way too right-wing politically. I don’t think she even really cares about abortion or gay marriage either.Moot point. She’s out.

Paul: he is libertarian, so he already starts out bad. I like his opposition to abortion, but I feel like it’s just so it can be made a state “right”. Plus I doubt he is against gay marriage.I would have to put a bullet between my teeth to vote for him, but as against Obama, that’s exactly what I would do if he gets the nomination. The worst thing about him is that he’ll be essentially helpless as a president because nobody on either side of the aisle is likely to be supportive of him in very much.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Santorum is the most likely of all candidates to follow the Social Encyclicals. One should read them.

I wish I would have paid more attention to Sen Santorum in the earlier debates. Never-the-less, his famous anti-partial birth abortion exchanges with Sen Boxer and others are worthy reads.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Father Pavone has posted this from his Facebook page about the 2012 Election and Catholics:

catholicadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TopTen_Misled_2012.pdf

Among the best statements:

1. Pro-life Catholics will be labeled as “single issue voters” who don’t care about the larger social teaching of the Church, especially concern for the poor and vulnerable.
2. The budget passed by the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI-01) a Catholic, will be relentlessly attacked as not caring about the poor because it proposed cuts and spending freezes to reduce the growing U.S. deficit that is hurting the economy.
3. Catholic voters will be told the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama-Care) did not contain federal funding for abortion.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I am more concerned about Obama KEEPING his word on abortion and his plans for my utility bills than I am about Gingrich’s love life. Besides, Obama is clearly lying about his “support for marriage”.

Romney: He can’t be anything other than prolife in action or he won’t have a base. Luckily.

Santorum: I like him for gay marriage and abortion, but every where else he is too right-wing for me. Very conservative in everything you can imagine. Santorum is the most likely of all candidates to follow the Social Encyclicals. One should read them.

**He’s the most likely to, which is why he’s my favorite (although I like Hunstman just because I don’t really know about him). **

Perry: Well, he’s at least right on one thing, then.

**yep. that makes him one of the best. **

.

 

[meltzerboy]

CNN poll found 62% of Americans want all or most abortions illegal:

i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/15/rel15e.pdf

“Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” The survey found 25 percent of Americans want all abortions legal while 21 percent want all abortions illegal, and it had a large group of 53 percent of Americans saying abortions should be legal only under certain circumstances.

“Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, legal in a few circumstances or illegal in all circumstances? ” CNN found the same 25 percent and 21 percent want either all abortions legal or all illegal. But, breaking down that 53 percent group further, CNN shows just 12 percent want abortions legal in most circumstances while 41 percent want most abortions to be made illegal.

lifenews.com/2011/09/15/cnn-poll-62-want-all-or-most-abortions-made-illegal/

Gallup poll found most ‘‘pro choice’’ Americans want limits on abortion:

“Self-described “pro-choice” and “pro-life” Americans agree about nine major areas of abortion policy, while disagreeing on eight others. Among the areas of consensus, in which a majority of both groups hold the same opinion, especially large percentages are in favor of requiring informed consent for women (86% of pro-choice adults and 87% who are pro-life) and making abortion illegal in the third trimester (79% and 94%).”

Some 86 percent of “pro-choice” Americans favor giving women information about abortion’s risks and alternatives beforehand, 79 percent favor banning abortions in the third-trimester, 63 percent favor banning partial-birth abortions, 60 percent support parental consent for minors, 60 percent back a 24-hour abortion waiting period, and even 52 percent of “pro-choice” Americans want abortions to be made illegal in the second trimester.

The only abortion limits where those who describe themselves as favoring legalized abortion differ with pro-life advocates are allowing women a chance to see ultrasound before an abortion (where 28 percent of “pro-choice” people agree with such a law), banning federal funding for abortion businesses (23 percent agree), and allowing pharmacists and medical workers to opt out of participating in or referring for abortions.

Gallup also found that, by a 24 percent margin, 61-37 percent, Americans take the pro-life view that abortions should either be legal under no circumstances or legal only under a few circumstances. Although Gallup doesn’t specify those “few” circumstances, polling data has consistently shown that, when asked about cases such as rape, incest, or the life of the mother, a majority of Americans want all or almost all abortions made illegal — leaving only life of the mother or rape and incest as the exceptions.

gallup.com/poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx

lifenews.com/2011/08/08/gallup-finds-pro-choice-americans-back-most-abortion-limits/

Thank you for the statistics. It seems that relatively few people approve of abortion on demand with no restrictions. Also, relatively few approve of no abortion under any circumstances. The majority seem to favor keeping abortion legal only under rare circumstances, including endangerment of the mother’s life, incest, and rape. This appears sensible to me, although I realize it is not in accord with Catholic teaching. Whether it will come to pass even under a Republican Presidential administration is still in doubt. As I’ve stated before, it is my impression Romney is not the one who would push for this, and I don’t believe Paul would either despite the pledge he signed. Gingrich might, but only Santorum definitely would. For those Catholics who consider abortion the number one issue, it is my opinion that Santorum is the only viable candidate. I need not comment on Obama’s stance, which we all know.

 

[ishii]

Most people on the left are not pro-abortion, but they are pro-choice. This means they believe the decision regarding abortion should be left (no pun intended) to the woman and her family, her doctor, and her spiritual advisor, if she has one. People on the left believe that the decision concerning abortion is a personal decision which should not be mandated by the government or by the religious beliefs of any one faith. We agree with Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, and the late Betty Ford on this issue.

While I am sure you are sincere in your belief in a real, substantive distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion”. Here is an excerpt from a USCCB document that you might find revealing: (my bold italics added)

"Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless,* pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups **have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand. These organizations have formed new political arms and have intensified efforts to defeat politicians who do not support permissive abortion. Because of the critical importance of the issue and the need for a timely response, we wish to reaffirm our conviction that all human life is sacred whether born or unborn. With the Second Vatican Council we declare that “from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” *

old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

Clearly, the USCCB views pro-abortion and pro-choice as synonomous. And so do I.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Reading the CAF political forum has only confirmed my suspicions regarding the Far Right.

I used to think that MAYBE folks really felt that way but I really didn’t know- but now I know they do.

I never spent any time on conservative sites, or any time on right wing media in general, but thanks to CAF I see the pernacious and shocking views of the far Right laid bare.

Yes, I have seen shockingly cold and intellectually vacuos ideas presented. The most unsophisticated and dishonest notions have been presented with a wink and a coloquial drawl.

And I should vote for this? THIS should capture my conscience. Please!

Its ugly around here.

In other words, you are just like Barbara Boxer when was exposed as being pro-infanticide by Rick Santorum when she said : " I will not answer, I will not answer" . I have shown you a realistic view of your Democrat party in its pro-abortion/pro-infanticide glory. I asked you what you think of your party in light this. You refuse to address the question. I think that is very revealing.

Which side are you on, Ringil? I would like to think you are on the side of being pro-life, but if you want Obama to win, then what else can I conclude?

Ishii

 

[chevalier]

I agree with you.

Though Obama hasn’t been perfect I do hope for his re-election. It is good to see the GOP worried.

What about abortion, though? Is punishing whatever’s wrong with the GOP (and there certainly is some) more important than protecting the unborn?

 

[meltzerboy]

While I am sure you are sincere in your belief in a real, substantive distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion”. Here is an excerpt from a USCCB document that you might find revealing: (my bold italics added)

"Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless,* pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups ***have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand. These organizations have formed new political arms and have intensified efforts to defeat politicians who do not support permissive abortion. Because of the critical importance of the issue and the need for a timely response, we wish to reaffirm our conviction that all human life is sacred whether born or unborn. With the Second Vatican Council we declare that “from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”

old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

Clearly, the USCCB views pro-abortion and pro-choice as synonomous. And so do I.

Ishii

With sincere respect, I would expect the USCCB to say this since they represent the position of the Catholic Church. And I would expect you, as a good Catholic, to agree with this, just as I agree with what Orthodox Judaism says about abortion. (I must admit, however, I do not agree with everything Orthodox Judaism teaches on all moral issues, but that’s another matter.) The terms “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice,” as well as “pro-life,” are political fabrications. I believe most of us are, in a sense, pro-life; however, we have a different definition of what that means; that is, when life begins, the value of the unborn child’s life with respect to the mother’s life, and so on. I would rather not get into a discussion once again about the definition of life based on Scripture, according to Catholicism compared to Judaism; I’ve already discussed this issue on several other threads.

 

[ishii]

With sincere respect, I would expect the USCCB to say this since they represent the position of the Catholic Church. And I would expect you, as a good Catholic, to agree with this, just as I agree with what Orthodox Judaism says about abortion. (I must admit, however, I do not agree with everything Orthodox Judaism teaches on all moral issues, but that’s another matter.) The terms “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice,” as well as “pro-life,” are political fabrications. I believe most of us are, in a sense, pro-life; however, we have a different definition of what that means; that is, when life begins, the value of the unborn child’s life with respect to the mother’s life, and so on. I would rather not get into a discussion once again about the definition of life based on Scripture, according to Catholicism compared to Judaism; I’ve already discussed this issue on several other threads.

I have listened to Michael Medved and he explained the orthodox Jewish position on the issue - and you’re right, there is a difference between that and the Catholic position. That said, I have always been of the opinion that those who say they are against abortion but want to keep it legal, fund it, and fight to preserve it, might as well be pro-abortion.

Ishii

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Reading the CAF political forum has only confirmed my suspicions regarding the Far Right.

I used to think that MAYBE folks really felt that way but I really didn’t know- but now I know they do.

I never spent any time on conservative sites, or any time on right wing media in general, but thanks to CAF I see the pernacious and shocking views of the far Right laid bare.

Yes, I have seen shockingly cold and intellectually vacuos ideas presented. The most unsophisticated and dishonest notions have been presented with a wink and a coloquial drawl.

And I should vote for this? THIS should capture my conscience. Please!

Its ugly around here.

Ringil, this was superb. I’d make it my signature quote if I could. :clapping:

 

[ishii]

Ringil, this was superb. I’d make it my signature quote if I could. :clapping:

It seems more like a dodge of real questions. “I will not answer” , etc.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Ringil, this was superb. I’d make it my signature quote if I could. :clapping:

Perhaps you could answer this he refused to do so:

You find the teachings of the Chirch to be cold and vacuous? You are surprised to see people enunciating Catholic teaching in a Catholic Forum. Of course it would be helpful if you could bolster your disentangle from Church teaching with something other than "my conscience says it ok "

 

[ishii]

Perhaps you could answer this he refused to do so:

**

I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a pro-liberal Democrat catholic to answer a straightforward question.

Ishii