Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Category : News: Elections


Gay marriage Gives Romney Chance to Fire Up Base (Obama Puts Nails in Own Coffin)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

LINK - Gay marriage Gives Romney Chance to Fire Up Base (Obama Puts Nails in Own Coffin)

“While many Republicans consider the sudden emergence of gay marriage as an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign an unhelpful distraction, social conservatives Sunday insisted the Obama administration has given presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney an opportunity.

“I think the president this past week took six or seven states he carried in 2008 and put them in play with this one ill-conceived position that he’s taken,” American Values President Gary Bauer said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I think that Barack Obama has helped fit that missing piece of intensity that Mitt Romney is going to need,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian organization Family Research Council, said on CBS‘ “Face the Nation.”

Gay marriage is suddenly the country’s hottest political talking point after Mr. Obama last week said he now personally supports same-sex marriages — though he said the legality of such unions should be decided by individual states…”


Vulnerable Senate Dems Back Away from Obama Gay Marriage Flip Flop

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

LINK - Vulnerable Senate Dems Back Away from Obama Gay Marriage Flip Flop

“The Hill reports that some Democratic senators up for re-election have declined to back President Obama’s gay marriage statement.

Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the two most vulnerable Democratic senators, have declined to endorse Obama’s call for the legalization of gay marriage.

Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Democrats who have easier races but in states that could become more competitive by November, have also backed away from Obama’s stance.

They all represent states with constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform. While that may happen when delegates to the Democratic National Convention meet September in Charlotte, N.C., the party remains divided…”


Video: WH Press Secretary Forgets Name of Slain Border Patrol Agent

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Jay Carney forgets the name of the border patrol agent Brian Terry killed with guns from operation “Fast and Furious” (June 21, 2012).

There is an impeachment process, … it’s occurring on November 6th.


David Duke Endorses Leading New York Democrat

Original Article - David Duke Endorses Leading New York Democrat

The Democratic Party is facing an awkward problem Thursday because white supremacist David Duke has endorsed a leading candidate in the Democratic Party’s primary race for a New York House seat.

Duke says he’s endorsing Charles Barron, the leading candidate for the 10th district primary on June 26, because of their shared emnity toward “zionists.”

Barron is an African-American city politician who has been slammed as an anti-white racist and as a Jew-hater. However, he’s already got the endorsement of the retiring Democratic congressman, Rep. Edolphus Towns.

If Barron wins the June 26 primary, he’s a shoo-in for election in November because the district is overwhelmingly Democratic.

His election would be unnerving for many Democrats, including Jewish Democrats. Recent polls say that traditionally high support among orthodox Jews for the Democratic Party is declining toward 50 percent.

Duke’s endorsement of a Democrat also muddies routine claims by progressives that many conservatives and libertarians are motivated by racism. GOP supporters say their beliefs are motivated by American idealism and old-style liberal ideas of tolerance and freedom.

In recent days the Democratic establishment, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, has reacted to Barron’s advance by supporting his rival, Hakeem Jeffries, a state assemblyman.

Duke is a famous racist who ran as a Democrat and as a Republican in multiple Louisiana races during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

He now portrays himself as a supporter of “diversity,” and as a non-violent proponent of laws that encourage whites and African-Americans to live separately.

“In an election of limited choices, I think Charles Barron is the better choice [because] there is no greater danger facing the United States of America and facing the world than the unbridled power of zionist globalism,” Duke declared in a June 21 video.

The video appears on his website, whose banner declares, “For Human Freedom and Diversity.”

Duke, who was once a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and who established the National Association for the Advancement of White People, decried Barron’s support for affirmative action, and his controversial statements that endorse violence against whites.

“I certainly disagree with Barron’s extreme racist, even violently, anti-white rhetoric,” he said, while blaming “Jewish extremists” for racial divisions.

African-Americans and whites “want the same thing — they want the right to associate together in their schools and communities,” he said.

Duke did not explain how the law should treat blacks and whites who wish to live in an area dominated by the other group, or how the segregationist policies would be enforced.

But the real enemies, he said, are “zionists,” meaning Jews.

They “want constant conflict between the two groups so they can use a divide and conquer strategy to rule over us all.”

Jews, and “the international robber-zio-banks… [and] the zionist clubfed,” he said, are “the ultimate real enemies of both our peoples.”

This article has been updated to reflect that Hakeem Jeffries is a state assemblyman, not a New York City councilman.


Might We See a Landslide? (Yes We Can!)

Categories: News: Elections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Might We See a Landslide? (Yes We Can!)

We have grown unaccustomed to presidential landslides. The three most lopsided presidential races since 1988 fell short of the conventional definition of a landslide, which would be a ten-point difference in the popular vote between the winner of the election and the next-closest candidate.

Obama in 2008 beat McCain by seven points and carried 28 states. Clinton in 1996 beat Dole by eight points (although Clinton did not even get a majority of the popular vote) and carried 31 states. George H. Bush had a seven-point advantage over Dukakis in 1988 and carried 40 states. A quick perusal of the electoral maps in each race shows a closely divided nation and no real mandate for the victorious candidate.

But that landslide drought could end this November. Economic conditions produce landslides — prosperity propelled Reagan and Eisenhower, for example, to huge re-election wins in 1984 and 1956. Economic distress affects voters even more. Only once has a president persuaded Americans to re-elect him in grim economic times: FDR in his 1936 landslide re-election.

But FDR’s re-election in 1936 was preceded by a highly unusual 1934 midterm victory by Democrats. Normally, presidents’ parties lose seats in midterm elections, but in 1934, Democrats absolutely swamped Republicans, picking up 97 House seats and 12 Senate seats. Americans were sold on the New Deal, even if the nation was still in the doldrums.

Contrast that smashing victory for Democrats in FDR’s first midterm with what happened to Democrats in Obama’s first midterm. Republicans gained 64 seats in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate, as well as winning gubernatorial and state legislative races all over the nation. The message to Obama was clear, even if he was not listening. While Americans might have liked Obama personally, they clearly rejected the policies he was pursuing.

How bad was this midterm defeat? Democrats fared worse in Obama’s 2010 midterm election than Republicans did in Herbert Hoover’s 1930 midterm. The 1930, 1932, and 1934 elections are generally viewed as transformative elections, when America moved from a free-enterprise, business-friendly Republican nation into a New-Deal welfare-state Democrat nation. Democrats would hold the White House for twenty straight years after the 1932 election and hold Congress for all but two of those years.

It was not just the Great Depression which wrought this revolution. Hoover, unlike FDR, appeared tone-deaf to the suffering of Americans. He went from an enormously popular man — not just in America, but around the world — to a president perceived to be doing nothing while our nation fell apart. Hoover appeared to Americans in 1932 rather like Carter did in 1980 and George H. Bush did in 1992.

Obama is notably ignoring all the evidence of public unhappiness and promises to keep doing more of what he has been doing before. Moreover, his campaign has latched onto the strategy of trying to portray Romney as a scoundrel, which includes such profound silliness as when Romney is asked to respond to charges that he bullied a schoolmate fifty years ago. Even uglier are the attacks on Ann Romney, a loyal wife and good mother who is heroically battling an awful disease. Ann has been described as a woman who has never worked or, in a truly despicable portrayal, as some dilettante for fighting her battle with multiple sclerosis by riding a horse.

This sort of viciousness would not bother an acolyte of Alinsky, but the normal rest of America feels very differently, and this approach threatens to lose Obama the single — albeit relatively minor — advantage which he has enjoyed: personal likeability. The polls are beginning to show that this personal favorability gap between the two candidates is narrowing, and if the hatchet jobs on Romney’s wife grow coarser, a blowback of sympathy could actually make Romney more likable than Obama by Election Day.

Obama also seems to think that Romney is a neophyte campaigner. That is absurd. Romney ran a good campaign against Ted Kennedy in 1994, won the governorship of the bluest of blue states in 2002, ran a very good campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, and proved very disciplined and smart in his winning campaign for the nomination this year. Romney is no Reagan or FDR, but day by day Obama looks more and more like Hoover or Carter, only without the inherent decency of those two men.

Landslides often sneak up on pundits. Although Stuart Rothenberg has just declared Obama the “narrow underdog” in his re-election bid, the situation for Obama and his party may be much worse than that. We may be about to see the first presidential landslide in 28 years.


NYT: Jay Carney Made an ‘Angry Phone Call’ to Fox Exec. Following Anti-Obama Video

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - NYT: Jay Carney Made an ‘Angry Phone Call’ to Fox Exec. Following Anti-Obama Video

Jay Carney


White House press secretary Jay Carney made an “angry phone call” to a Fox News executive after the network aired a scathing video review last month of President Barack Obama’s first three years in office, the New York Times reported.

According to the Times, Carney told Michael Clemente, Fox News’ senior vice president for news, that the video had crossed the line even for “Fox & Friends,” the morning show where it aired. Two unnamed Democrats reportedly told the newspaper about the call, described as a “private conversation.”

(Related: Jay Carney Attacks Fox Reporter During Presser — You‘re Engaging in ’Selective Listening’)

As The Blaze previously reported, the four-minute clip featured a series of “then and now” comparisons, including the national debt, jobless rate and gas prices. It was met with heavy criticism from both sides of the political spectrum: Media Matters said it “crossed a new ethical line” while Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey questioned whether “a news organization [should] produce and publish attack ads like this?”

Fox News Executive Vice President for Programming Bill Shine ultimately disavowed the video, which has been pulled from Fox’s website.

“The package that aired on FOX & Friends was created by an associate producer and was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network,” Shine said in a statement. “This has been addressed with the show’s producers.”


Gallup: Obumbles Job Approval Sinks to 43%

Categories: News: Elections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012


Original Article – Gallup: Obumbles Job Approval Sinks to 43%

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Each result is based on a three-day rolling average

Download complete trend


% Approve % Disapprove
06/18-20/2012 43% 49%
06/17-19/2012 46% 48%
06/16-18/2012 45% 48%
06/15-17/2012 46% 47%
06/14-16/2012 45% 49%
06/13-15/2012 45% 49%
06/12-14/2012 44% 49%
06/11-13/2012 46% 48%
06/10-12/2012 48% 45%
06/9-11/2012 49% 45%


Gallup tracks daily the percentage of Americans who approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. Daily results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 national adults; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.



Mont. GOP Displays Bullet-Riddled ‘Obama Outhouse’ (F’ing AWESOME!)

Original Article - Mont. GOP Displays Bullet-Riddled ‘Obama Outhouse’ (F’ing AWESOME!)

A bullet-riddled outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library” containing a fake birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama and graffiti that read “For a Good Time” and a reference to first lady Michelle Obama was on display at the Montana Republican Convention in Missoula.

The display on Saturday also contained “For a Good Time” references to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, her name circled in red.

The display was parked outside Missoula’s Hilton Garden Inn that drew some 500 convention goers.

The convention also includes a raffle for a shotgun, shovel and duct tape, a reference to shoot, shovel and shut up involving the illegal killing of wolves or federally protected species such as grizzly bears.


FBI arrests ex-fund-raiser for Jesse Jackson Jr., key in Blago case

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - FBI arrests ex-fund-raiser for Jesse Jackson Jr., key in Blago case

Raghuveer Nayak was long the insider who politicos leaned on for his deep pockets.

He once picked up a $7,500 unpaid tab for a Rod Blagojevich fund-raiser, and more notably, paid to fly a “social acquaintance” of U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. across the country at Jackson’s request.

Nayak would wine and dine politicians, at times held fund-raisers at his home and for years poured money into numerous politicians’ campaigns, from Barack Obama to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to Gov. Pat Quinn.

At last summer’s Blagojevich retrial, prosecutors had a distinct way to refer to the wealthy businessman: He was “the bribe guy,” who in 2008 allegedly offered millions of dollars to Rod Blagojevich’s brother in exchange for appointing Jackson Jr. (D-Ill) to Obama’s vacant Senate seat.

On Wednesday, Nayak was in handcuffs, arrested by the FBI at his Oak Brook home on charges that he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks to doctors so they would refer patients to his surgical centers.

He appeared in court looking a bit disheveled and weary after he was greeted by agents at his home at 7 a.m. U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez ordered Nayak released on a $10 million bond that’s secured by six properties he owns.


Vote to Sanction Holder Escalates Gun-Probe Fight

Original Article - Vote to Sanction Holder Escalates Gun-Probe Fight

A standoff between Republicans and the Obama administration over a botched gun-trafficking operation escalated Wednesday, with a House committee voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

The party-line vote came hours after President Barack Obama, for the first time, asserted executive privilege, aiming to block Republicans from gaining access to Justice Department documents about the operation.

House Republican leaders said they would bring the contempt measure to the House floor next week. If the full House votes to support it, then a contempt citation could be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointee of Mr. Obama’s who is in Mr. Holder’s chain of command.

If it ends up in the courts, the dispute would raise constitutional questions about the power of the executive branch vs. Congress. Previous such battles have ended before reaching that stage with some kind of truce between the sides.

The White House asserted executive privilege over gun-trafficking-probe documents sought by congressional Republicans, throwing into uncertainty a possible vote to sanction Attorney General Eric Holder. Peter Landers has details on Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images.

The battle centers on a 2009-10 operation, dubbed Fast and Furious, that was run by Arizona-based agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, aimed at building a case against suspected smugglers of firearms to Mexico. The agents, using a tactic called gun-walking, allowed suspected smugglers to buy about 2,000 firearms, without intercepting the weapons.

Some of the guns have since turned up at crime scenes on both sides of the border, including at a December 2010 shootout that killed a U.S. border agent.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) have led an inquiry into Fast and Furious for more than a year, holding hearings with ATF agents who said their objections to the tactics were ignored. Mr. Issa heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which voted on the contempt measure Wednesday.

The documents at issue largely detail internal deliberations last year as Justice officials tried to respond to congressional questions about the operation. Republicans say the documents may show whether high-level officials were aware of Fast and Furious early on and whether there is a coverup. The White House says such documents involving internal deliberations traditionally haven’t been subject to a congressional subpoena.

The controversy has ebbed and flowed until reaching a flash point this week. The two sides appeared as if they might reach an agreement Tuesday night. Messrs. Holder and Issa met for 20 minutes, but the talks became of a game of chicken, with each side saying it insisted the other act first to resolve the standoff.

Mr. Issa Wednesday rejected the executive-privilege claim, saying it “only applies to materials that directly pertain to communications with the president and his senior advisers.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Mr. Obama’s reasoning was similar to that of former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Mr. Schultz said the other presidents “protected the same category of documents we’re protecting today,” meaning after-the-fact internal materials.

Mr. Bush claimed executive privilege six times, and Mr. Clinton is believed to have claimed it 14 times. Under the doctrine of executive privilege, presidents have sought to withhold from Congress documents relating to internal deliberations of the executive branch.

Mr. Holder said that “from the beginning, Chairman Issa and certain members of the Committee have made unsubstantiated allegations first, then scrambled for facts to try to justify them later. That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth.”

If the matter were referred to the U.S. attorney, it isn’t clear Congress could compel him to prosecute the attorney general. In the Bush administration, the House voted to hold White House officials including White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt in a similar documents dispute, and the Bush-appointed attorney general ordered the U.S. attorney to disregard it. The matter was eventually settled with the production of documents.

Other attorneys general have been caught in similar disputes. The House oversight committee voted to hold Janet Reno, attorney general under Mr. Clinton, in contempt. The full House didn’t take up the matter, and the dispute was resolved when documents were produced. Democrats drafted a report recommending contempt against Attorney General Michael Mukasey in the latter days of the Bush administration but didn’t go further after he turned over documents.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Republican lawmakers said Mr. Obama’s assertion of executive privilege contrasted with his criticism as a senator of the Bush administration’s use of the privilege. Then-Sen. Obama said the Bush White House was “hiding” behind the privilege to avoid “coming clean” during a dispute over White House documents over the firings of U.S. attorneys. Mr. Bush’s then-attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, resigned under pressure over the firings.


With Democrats firmly backing Mr. Holder, it is unlikely the contempt fight will affect the remainder of his tenure through the end of the current administration in January.

Mr. Holder has increasingly been on the sidelines of some of the biggest national-security fights. He led the administration’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, and he pushed to try the plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in civilian court in New York. He ended up badly bruised in both efforts, after the White House surrendered to Republican objections.

Both sides sought to gain partisan advantage from the fight. The Republican National Committee is using a “Fire Eric Holder” website to seek campaign donations. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer accused Republicans of embarking on a “purely political” effort rather than focusing on legislation to create jobs.


No Amnesty Bump for Obama in Polls

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 20, 2012

Original Article - No Amnesty Bump for Obama in Polls


Investor’s Business Daily story here by Andrew Malcolm, formerly of the Los Angeles Times. “Obama’s Immigration Ploy Has Gained Him Nada” in the polls. “To help smother the dismal reviews of his economic reset speech last week in Cleveland, President Obama scheduled a last-minute Rose Garden appearance Friday morning to add some presidential heft to his executive order about immigration. Whenever he’s in trouble, the one-time Real Good Talker throws another speech out there.

“Until this spring’s troubles, everybody always said speaking was his strong suit. His Fidel Castro-length economic remarks blamed Europe, Congress and the usual Texan [George Bush] for the nation’s re-sinking economy.” So here’s Andrew Malcolm reviewing the Obama that we all know. It’s the same guy. He goes on and on and on, says nothing, stutters and hems and haws without a prompter. It’s common. It’s every day. To the guy at the New York Times, it’s panic time.

Oh, no! My God, he doesn’t look so smart now. He doesn’t look so in command.

It’s the same Obama that everybody gets every day. And then Andrew Malcolm writes, “But — are you sitting down? — it contained no new ideas. He’s still waiting for Congress to do something, you see. So, the 6,300 words ended up merely calling more sustained attention to the administration’s idea bankruptcy, to the dim outlook for job improvements and to how bad the economy remains, despite all the promises more than 700 days ago of a magnificent Recovery Summer. Two-thirds of Americans remain convinced their country is still mired in recession.

“So, to change the subject quickly, Obama’s Friday schedule was amended for him to get some news coverage about what he’d already told Homeland Security to do: Permit illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children to remain here under certain conditions, not including citizenship. The unexpected announcement, which always raises the attention level in that DC hothouse, was widely touted by the media as a brilliant political move that would not only back Republicans into a corner somewhere, but earn a badly-needed poll boost for the Democrat languishing dangerously well below 50% approval in an election year.”

But “On the day before his immigration remarks, Gallup’s seven-day rolling average of about 3,000 registered voters in a hypothetical Obama-Romney match-up had the Republican ahead 46-45. Four days later the rolling average was exactly the same, 46 Romney[;] 45 Obama. In Rasmussen Reports’ three-day rolling average of their match-up, just before Obama’s Rose Garden remarks, Romney lead Obama 47-45. Three days later, Romney had improved to 48. Obama had slipped to 44.”

So there was no bump.

There was no polling bump.

Obama didn’t get any polling bump from his immigration remarks on Friday. And I told you to expect this on Monday or Tuesday of this week. I asked you to remember 2007 and that the people of this country are diametrically opposed to amnesty. They don’t want any part of it, of what Obama announced. I said it’s not gonna help him. Everybody thinks it’s gonna help. What he’s doing, folks, is he has given up on mainstream America. His bet is that his electoral chances are better coalescing all these disparate, extreme fringe groups into one voting bloc. And he thinks that bunch will outnumber mainstream America.

That’s what he’s counting on. They said it was brilliant, but ain’t gonna happen.

It’s not gonna happen.




Absurd: Bloomberg Poll Has Obama Leading Romney by 13 Points

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 20, 2012

Original article - Absurd: Bloomberg Poll Has Obama Leading Romney by 13 Points

Thirteen points? Really?

Barack Obama has opened a significant lead over Mitt Romney in a Bloomberg National Poll that reflects the presumed Republican nominee’s weaknesses more than the president’s strengths.

Obama leads Romney 53 percent to 40 percent among likely voters, even as the public gives him low marks on handling the economy and the deficit, and six in 10 say the nation is headed down the wrong track, according to the poll conducted June 15- 18.

Naturally they sampled more Democrats than Republicans, by five points. Even so, this poll conflicts wildly with every other national poll. Rasmussen, for example, has Romney consistently leading and up four points Tuesday (and the GOP up by seven in the generic Congressional ballot) with Gallup having Romney up by one point.

I suspect this Bloomberg poll be be widely touted by the media but won’t hold up to any scrutiny by those who do polling for a living.


Lawrence O’Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

Original Article - Lawrence O’Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

With each passing day, the Obama-loving media stoop to new lows in attacking the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his family.

On MSNBC’s The Last Word Monday, host Lawrence O’Donnell mocked Ann Romney for having the nerve to combat her multiple sclerosis by riding horses:

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: In tonight’s Rewrite, Mitt Romney rewrites the definition of an Olympic athlete.


BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST OF “FACE THE NATION”: I hear you’ve got an Olympic athlete in the family.

MITT ROMNEY: Isn’t that something? Yeah, it’s not me. It’s my wife, of course. She’s the athlete, but in this case, it’s not her personally, but she along with two other people purchased a horse and have trained it up.


O’DONNELL: She’s the athlete. That’s what Mitt Romney just said. She’s the athlete.

Actually, that’s NOT what Romney just said. He said, “But in this case, it’s not her personally, but she along with two other people purchased a horse and have trained it up.”

Exactly what about that clarification to Schieffer’s question wasn’t clear enough for O’Donnell to understand?

The host of Face the Nation said, “I hear you’ve got an Olympic athlete in the family,” and Romney replied, “But in this case, it’s not her personally.”

Is the intellectual capacity of MSNBC anchors and commentators dropping as Romney rises in the polls, or is it just their professional integrity?

Or both?

Let’s continue:

O’DONNELL: So what will the athlete in the family be doing in the Olympics?


ROMNEY: So she’s quite thrilled and I’m sure she’ll be watching. I have a campaign to attend to, so I won’t be able to see it perform. But I’m very pleased for her.


O’DONNELL: That’s right. The Romney family definition of an Olympic athlete is a person who participates in the purchase of an Olympic athlete, in this case, a horse that the Romneys own. Now, Mitt Romney has always told the story of the family’s entry into the breathtakingly expensive so-called sport of dressage as a therapeutic option for Ann Romney’s multiple sclerosis.


SCHIEFFER: Dressage?

ROMNEY: Yes, it’s the sport of dressage. Not many people are familiar with it, but something for which she has a passion, and frankly, her getting back on a horse after she was diagnosed with MS was able, she’s convinced, to help her regenerate her strength and renew that vigor.


O’DONNELL: Now, this is not in any way to make light of Ann Romney’s difficulty with MS, it’s obviously a very difficult thing to bear. And there are a lot of things you can do to try to deal with MS. But, come on, dressage does not appear in any of the more traditional courses of treatment. And if it’s true that dressage is how wildly rich people deal with this very difficult personal health problem, then why, why does the horse appear on Mitt Romney’s tax return as a business expense, that in 2010 produced a $77,000 business deduction. Not a healthcare deduction, a business deduction for the Romney Limited Liability Corporation that owns the horse as a business.

Mitt Romney was afraid to identify a single tax deduction that he would eliminate or reduce, but I think we can be sure that the Olympic athlete in the Romney family, the horse that masquerades as Ann’s horse, but that is never actually ridden by Ann, would continue to be a fake deductible business expense if Mitt and Ann ever get to watch their Olympic athlete on a TV in the White House.

This is so disgusting it’s nauseating.

First off, what business is it of O’Donnell’s how Ann Romney chose to deal with her illness?

If going for walks, going to the museum, watching television, or, heaven forbid, riding horses helped “regenerate her strength and renew [her] vigor,” isn’t that a good thing?

Why should that be the subject of scorn and derision, especially from a representative of a so-called “news network?”

As for Romney’s taxes, it is safe to assume that their LLC purchases horses as an investment just as most people do. Income is derived from breeding and/or selling them. As such, expenses associated with their training and upkeep are deductible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But why should we expect an ignorant shill such as O’Donnell to understand that?

Furthermore, who is O’Donnell to ridicule anyone for his or her wealth? According to Celebrity Net Worth, his estate is valued at $8 million.

That makes him just another rich liberal castigating Romney for his wealth.

It never ends, does it?

(HT @PoliticalPAW)

*****Update: I received a very interesting email message from NB reader Jeffrey Peters who is a volunteer to Maryland Special Olympics and 4H (with permission):

Dressage is a very common technique to help many types of disabilities, and is one of the few that tends to work for many problems that lack effective treatment. Therapeutic Riding is a major event and is a fundamental component of the Special Olympics. In Maryland, over 100 riders participated in the Special Olympics Therapeutic Riding event earlier in June. Dressage is not for “rich people.” Most of the Special Olympians are from lower income families. Most participants are just honest people who enjoy a very popular sport. This is a part of the matter that is so often ignored. It is honestly upsetting to see such hate against an event that helps so many special needs adults and children.

One such facility is the Maryland Therapeutic Riding center:

Maryland Therapeutic Riding (MTR) is a non-profit organization located between Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland on a beautiful 25-acre farm. Utilizing certified instructors, licensed therapists, volunteers and specially-trained horses, we offer high-quality horseback riding programs to open new pathways of healing for children and adults with a wide range of physical, mental, and emotional challenges.

Therapeutic Riding is a treatment for rehabilitating a range of physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. PATH certified instructors use the horse as an instructional tool to teach riding skills and reach individualized goals and objectives. Conditions served include: cerebral palsy, spina bifida, neuromuscular disorders, post-traumatic brain injury, autism, ADHD, and cognitive disorders. Riders see an overall improvement in their quality of life. They experience improved self-confidence, strength, balance, coordination, attention span, and language and social skills.

I also discovered that therapeutic riding is used to help “wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan improve their balance, coordination and hone other valuable physical therapy skills.”

As fate has it, suburban Chicago’s Daily Herald just published a piece on this issue on – wait for it – Saturday (HT @CindyCoops):

Documents from Ancient Greece show horse therapy dates to 600 B.C., with the practice growing in popularity in recent years around the suburbs and across the country.

Earlier this month on a three-day campaign stop in Florida, Ann Romney, wife of the former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential hopeful, visited a therapeutic horse-riding facility telling patients she was unable to walk at one point because her multiple sclerosis symptoms were so severe. But, Ann Romney said, the “excitement of getting on a horse” helped her build her strength and caused her symptoms to ease.

Once again, this article was published only three days ago!

As such, shouldn’t an MSNBC anchor either know of the medical and psychological benefits of therapeutic riding or have someone on his staff investigate it before mocking a presidential candidate’s wife for claiming it helped her overcome her serious illness?

Or might uncovering the facts inconveniently interfere with his agenda?

*****Update II: NB reader Mark Neidl offered his thoughts via email (with permission):

My son has Cerebral Palsy and therapeutic riding benefitted him as well as many other children and adults who suffer from many different ailments. People like the Romneys support organizations such as these and without their gifts and donations, people like my son would not have had the opportunity to participate in a program such as this since we are not wealthy as are 90% of the people who have benefitted from therapeutic riding. I recall my son competing in “Dressage” once a year which allowed him to compete against other riders and showcased his abilities to everyone. We have ribbons to prove it and my wife and I are positive he improved because of this program.

Mr. O’Donnell’s comments and mocking of Dressage were quite insulting.

Here is the website for this wonderful program: http://www.sheacenter.org/

Mr. Neidl informed me in a follow-up message, “Our son graduates this Wednesday, quite an accomplishment for him since his diagnosis at birth was pretty dire. Throughout his life he has been helped by a lot of people and, God forbid, many of them wealthy.”

*****Update III: Today Show Covered Benefits of MS Patients Riding Horses Same Day O’Donnell Mocked Ann Romney For It.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/19/lawrence-odonnell-attacks-ann-romney-riding-horses-combat-multiple-sc#ixzz1yIeiWTpU


Daily Caller Whines That ‘Increasingly Irrelevant’ Palin Hasn’t Endorsed Romney

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - Daily Caller Whines That ‘Increasingly Irrelevant’ Palin Hasn’t Endorsed Romney

Something about that Old Guard and that establishment. There’s a schedule to keep and a list of rules to follow. Apparently, Sarah Palin shredded her copy and it’s starting to rub the media the wrong way.

Despite saying dozens of times over the last year that she would eventually back the GOP nominee in her #1 mission to replace Barack Obama, apparently the media expects more.

An article written by The Hill yesterday notices: “Palin Doesn’t Mention Romney In Address To Conservative Bloggers” saying:

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rallied conservative media activists for “victory in 2012” as the keynote speaker at the RightOnline conference in Las Vegas on Friday, but never mentioned the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Instead, Palin directed fire at her two favorite targets – President Obama and the mainstream media.

Considering who Romney’s opponent will be in November, you’d think this was enough — but apparently not.

The Daily Caller reiterates: “Sarah Palin Hasn’t Formally Endorsed Romney Yet” while they also concede that she “has made it concretely clear that she’s opposed to President Barack Obama’s re-election.”

Then, this morning the snark kicked in at the Daily Caller again:

Sarah Palin has become increasingly irrelevant, but her endorsement still remains sought after by GOP candidates. And Mitt Romney has yet to become a recipient of her beneficence, reports TheDC’s Alex Pappas.

Sounds to me like some are starting to get a little grumpy. First, it is absurd to suggest someone is “increasingly irrelevant” (especially with a blog owned by an “increasingly irrelevant” pundit known solely for his abundant collection of bow ties) when you’re beginning the top of the page of your precious blog space to mention it. If that in and of itself isn’t enough to disprove their claim of increasing irrelevance, we have Palin’s endorsing of Richard Mourdock for Senate in Indiana labeled by the Washington Post at the time as the “highest-profile endorsement yet for the primary challenger and it pits Palin against her old running-mate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who just cut a radio ad for Lugar.”

Soon afterwards a series of Johnny-Come-Latelys joined the Mourdock-backing-party — including Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. But it is well known by now that if any one person’s endorsement carried Mourdock to the finish line, it was Governor Palin (with the help of the grassroots tea party activists in Indiana who look up to her).

Also, when Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum were endorsing the obvious winner-to-be judging by projection polls in Nebraska’s Senate race, Jon Bruning, Palin came out a week before the primary and endorsed Deb Fischer. By the end of that week (just two days later) Fischer had closed the long-time gap she had all the months prior leading up to that primary. On election day, Fischer won the primary by a healthy margin.

And the good-old-boy network in Texas was sure going strong when many outside politicians as well as Governor Rick Perry endorsed Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for U.S. Senate. Then once again, Palin came in to save the day for Ted Cruz — a favorite among Tea Party activists in Texas who up until that point was running 12-points behind Dewhurst. Because of the Palin nod and energy Cruz garnered from that endorsement, he was able to get a huge surge of votes toward the end forcing Dewhurst into an upcoming runoff election.

So the Daily Caller apparently wants to marginalize Palin’s influence even though she continues to contradict such claims day after day after day through her actions. Why did they even report on her RightOnline speech if she was irrelevant? Why was she picked to give the speech? For the same reason she’ll be asked to give many more: the same people who are tired of being condescended to by politicians and accompanying surrogates in the media are seeing it play out through Gov. Palin. And judging by the snarkyness in this piece at the Daily Caller, I’d say it’s working splendidly without Palin having to do anything but speak with honesty about common sense conservatism and against the establishment.

Interestingly enough perhaps the most compelling part of her speech which seems to be missed in the various articles written up on it states:

Sometimes you gotta rage against the machine … to hold them accountable … Whatever the outcome is in November, please do not get co-opted by the permanent political class. Granted you will not make many friends in the Beltway or in Hollywood … or in HBO … you won’t be one of the cool kids … doggone it … aww … sometimes you’ll find yourself under the bus … but you need to stay outside of the machines … sometimes you gotta rage against it … stay outside of the political establishments in order to hold them accountable … don’t spin the GOP failures the same way the left does for President Obama.

Despite being committed to firing Barack Obama, Palin let the entire establishment know that she’s going to be on them like white on rice after November. Since we know this sole quote gets to the heart of their “increasingly irrelevant” mantra, I warn all to get ready for more — and welcome it with a smile.

I see November and a Romney win as a double-win for grassroots conservatism for the long haul. We fire Barack Obama and with Governor Palin after the election, the GOPe will no longer be able to effectively guard their own.

Update by Stacy: I find it odd that the Daily Caller and The Hill used the RightOnline conference speech as an excuse to bring up the fact that Governor Palin has not formally endorsed Mitt Romney. They both should know that the conference was hosted by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) and that the group is a 501(c)(3) organization. What does that mean? It means that nobody standing at a podium at their event can endorse a specific candidate:

Via the IRS:

The type of tax exemption determines whether an organization may endorse candidates for public office. For example, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.

I was in attendance at the conference, and I didn’t hear one speaker mention Mitt Romney’s name. It would have violated AFPF’s tax-exempt status.


Mitt Romney: In It to Win It (Romney Landslide is Coming…)

Categories: News: Elections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 19, 2012

Original Article - Mitt Romney: In It to Win It (Romney Landslide is Coming…)

Mitt Romney will beat President Obama in this fall’s election, most likely by a substantial margin. There. I said it. I may have a plate full of hat in my future, but I doubt it.

Pundits will give you the usual reasons for a Romney victory, but it all boils down to two things: first, Romney took the time to build an organization and second, and most important, he wants to win. Tea Party patriots and constitutional conservatives would be smart to learn a lesson from this.

While many conservatives were swooning over the latest firebrand candidate to carry their cause, Romney was already running out the clock before the game even started. Since before the 2008 election, he has been steadily building a campaign Team, networking, collecting endorsements and raising money. He knew how the system worked and used it to his advantage. The Tea Party movement has only been in existence since 2009, and then made the mistake of not coalescing behind a single candidate early enough in the race to counter Romney. We swung for the fences and struck out. Team Romney took walks, stole bases, hit singles and scored runs. The lesson that needs to be taken from this is that the Tea Party must start building their bench right now in order to have one of their own win the presidency. Although there are some admired personalities, none of them possessed what it took to beat Romney.

Some may point to Obama’s meteoric rise from obscurity and argue that all it takes is a well run campaign and a weak opponent to win. This would be a false argument. You would have to discount the fact that the Democratic Party has shifted to a party run by the far left in all its forms: elitist intellectuals, communists, crony capitalists, and race baiters. The mold was poured and Obama fit perfectly. He was the one they were waiting for.

What may be the most important factor favoring Mitt Romney, though, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that he actually wants to win. Initially, many of us were worried that Romney would play hardball in the primaries and then lay down in the general election. McCain did this in the last election by making too many of Obama’s flaws off limits. Many of us waited for that strike that never happened. Many of us voted for Palin because at least she was not afraid to fight and we knew it. As evidenced by Romney’s quick rebuttal of the dog on the roof, the nimble timing of the Solyndra speech and his bus honking the horn at an Obama rally, he’s not afraid to get under the president’s skin. He is aware of his own weaknesses and stays away from them but is not afraid to fight back.

Why is this important? We need to look no further than Patton’s speech to the Third Army in 1944. “Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.” Despite the efforts of the politically correct to breed this out of us, there are many of us left to whom these words still ring true. Ron Paul’s people were not afraid to fight, to use any tactic necessary to win, and made gains rarely seen against the Republican establishment. Barack Obama played hardball to stun Hillary in the caucuses. Her people, especially many white, traditional Democrats, never had a chance. Neither Paul’s nor Obama’s people were afraid to bend or even break the rules. The difference was one group had the majority of the party behind it.

Tea partiers speak in reverent tones of the patriots who took part in the original Boston Tea Party, but many would be appalled at the antics of the real Sam Adams. The original patriots knew what was at stake and were not afraid to do what it took to win. They built their organizations and weren’t afraid to upset people. They didn’t play nice.

Mitt Romney is not the choice of many conservatives, but helping him win accomplishes two things: it removes very dangerous people from the knobs of power in this country and it buys time to build a real organization. Worst case, it is still preferable to be in a bus doing ninety miles an hour heading towards the cliff than to actually be over it. Meantime, Mitt Romney may surprise us and govern as a conservative or he may not, but one thing seems sure, he is in it to win it.

Crush Marxism!
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott The Home Depot!

Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!

Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (20449 followers)
Welcome , today is Friday, June 22, 2012