PoliticsUSA: Independents: Shift in poll numbers evidence a threat to Obama campaign

NYT (January18,2k12)

Poll shows 

Obama’s vulnerability 

with swing voters

by JEFF ZELENY and DALIA SUSSMAN

President Obama opens his re-election bid facing significant obstacles among independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with the critical piece of the electorate that cemented his victory four years ago open to denying him a second term.

As Mr. Obama moves toward a full-throated campaign, delivering a State of the Union address on Tuesday and inching closer to directly confronting his Republican challenger, a majority of independent voters have soured on his presidency, disapprove of how he has dealt with the economy and do not have a clear idea of what he hopes to accomplish if re-elected.

The swing voters who will play a pivotal role in determining his political fate are up for grabs, the poll found, with just 31 percent expressing a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama. Two-thirds of independent voters say he has not made real progress fixing the economy. ...

While Republican primary voters say Mitt Romney stands the best chance of defeating Mr. Obama, nearly half of independents say they have yet to form an opinion of him, creating a considerable opening for Democrats to try to quickly define him if he becomes the nominee. ...


But with 10 months remaining until Election Day and the lines of argument coming into view, voters are evenly divided in a matchup between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. The president does better against the other Republican candidates. ...


— Text excerpted from NYT and posted here by Politicarp


In a related development, Romney rival, Newt Gingrich, presently in a surge in South Carolina that seems to promise he will overtake the winner of the Repulican primary in New Hampshire, refused to answer questions about his serial pattern of adultery.
  
Gingrich cuts off reporters 


when asked about ex-wife's 


open marriage claims

— The Hill's Ballot Box feature

by Cameron Joseph - 01/19/12 01:23 PM ET BEAUFORT, S.C. — Newt Gingrich abruptly ended a news conference Thursday when pressed on his extramarital affairs. “I’m not going to say anything about Marianne,” Gingrich said with an edge to his voice as he was pressed with questions about an explosive interview his ex-wife Marianne Gingrich has given to ABC.  Marianne Gingrich claimed her former husband asked her for an “open marriage” so he could continue a romantic involvement with a congressional aide who eventually became his third wife, Callista Gingrich. “It’s an issue I confront every time it comes up, and I confront it exactly the same way it comes up — and the people seem to be satisfied by it,” Gingrich said when asked by a reporter if he thought he needed to further address the matter. Reporters tried to ask Gingrich more specifically about his ex-wife's charges, but he refused to answer. "I just answered you — that's my answer," he responded testily before trying to move on to the endorsement his campaign received Thursday from Rick Perry., who bowed out of the race. "I want to thank all of you for being here, I'm delighted Gov. Perry endorsed me and I look forward to tonight at the debate," he said before walking off quickly. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordinarily most Catholics and Evangelicals treat adultery, especially in a serial pattern, as a mortal flaw in someone wanting the office of the American Presidency.  Gingrich, once a Southern Baptist (after being raised a Lutheran), is now seeking to take the large South Carolina evangelical vote that had been tilting to another Catholic, Rick Santorum.  But before the four-candidates debated Wednesday nite, Gingrich was endorsed by Rick Perry (also a Southern Baptist) who had already stood down in timely fashion just dropping out of the contest, while the Texas Governor talked of Newt's confession and repentance.  But, to use Gingrich's phrase, is this just "pious baloney"?  I think so, considering the illogic of Perry's syllogism:  



I confessed and repented 


of my monotonous stream of 


adulteries, therefore I shoud 


be President.




And we who at great pain and sacrifice kept our vows for decades, and are keeping them now — well, we're just not among the élite politicians who are to be lionized for having broken their vows; and then, having confessed and repented to an Archbishop, are now to be rewarded for our piety, as attested by our audacity in running for election to America's highest offices.


Here's the truth about Gingrich's lack of truthfulness (an accusation the Grinch hurled at Romney in the New Hampshire debate):   Gingrich took on his first mistress while still married to his first wife, abandoning her.  When she died, Gingrich married the mentioned first mistress, and soon enuff took on a second.  Eventually, Gingrich took on the second mistress, in what it was revealed by the first-mistress-become-second wife to be Newt's effort to force an 'open marriage' on her.  Eventually again, while still married to the second wife and former first mistress, the Grinch of Georgia took on a third mistress apparently to jazz-up the unsatisfying 'open marriage' he imposed on the second wife.  (Now today,  he declares that it never happened, as the first mistress / second wife claimed overnite.)  And eventually the third mistress took over as third wife.


Gingrich simply lacks credibility.  He established his pattern of serial adultery and it seems most probable that, if the woman that he is presently nominating to become the First Lady, accedes with him to national power, in due season Gingrich will simply take yet another mistress (and perhaps many more over his presumed four years in the Presidency, joyously adulterating like the Kennedys and Clinton).  Only this time, his Iago is playing to her Lady MacBeth.  He just can't keep his vows.  We may want to ask, What other countries dealing diplomatically or militarily with a President Gingrich coud possibly trust him to carry out his own words and commitments faithfully?


We must feel very sad for the evangelical community that rails in season and out against certain classes of Americans whose personal conduct our pious-baloniac Evangelicals find utterly contemptible but who now woud nevertheless champion an old, fat serial adulterer who hasn't the discipline to keep his marriage vows -- once, twice, thrice.  If Obama and Gingrich are our only choices, I say, a plague on both their houses!


— Politicarp

PoliticsUSA: Kentucky Senate campaign: Overweening ambition drives Democrat Attorney General to smear Libertarian Republican and Presbyterian candidate who rejects faith-based social service

A blog called Hot Air has revealed that Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for the Senate in Kentucky, does not support the very important important role of tax-supported faith-based agencies (not churches!, as the blog falsely states) to have a level playing field in competing with secularistic organizations to perform service tasks that they often can better provide than can a directly-governmental bureaucracy.

John McCormack quotes a speech given by Paul in 2008, before his run for the Senate officially launched, about his reasoning on defunding faith-based government initiatives:

“One, I think the money sort of pollutes the mission of a purely Christian organization, or Muslim or whatever organization it is. And it obscures the church-state separation that there really ought to be. We shouldn’t have tax money flowing into churches, and we should let churches do charity work, and that’s wonderful, but they shouldn’t be corrupted with government money.”

Whether or not one agrees with this reasoning, it’s at least a rational argument, and one heard from many people of faith who worry about the co-opting influence of government money in churches. It’s hardly an attack on religion. As for ending tax deductions for churches, Paul supports that because he wants an end to the income tax altogether, which would mean the end of all income-tax deductions. Paul wants the income tax replaced with the Fair Tax, and all deductions would be eliminated in the change.

This ad may not be quite as offensive as Grayson’s despicable attack on Webster through the use of out-of-context sound bites that made Webster sound as if he said the exact opposite of what he actually said, but it’s pretty close. Sticking “Washington Post 8/11/2010″ on a known smear doesn’t sanitize it at all. Unless Conway wants to demand religious tests for office, what’s left in this ad is almost as awful, too.

I don't like MSNBC's reporter Chris Matthews, but I have to give him credit for his on-camera investigative journalism in this case of Jack Conway's violation of the Westminster Catechism regarding "unnecessarily exposing the sins of others" (something l+k that) -- even were the anonymous allegations true. The alleged events were said to have taken place some decades ago, when Conway's opponent was a student at (Baptist) Baylor University in Texas.

The come-uppance for Conway, Attorney General of Kentucky, occurs on the same YouTube page  (subscribe free to my yUT2ube Channel that now includes this video) where a commenter named Schmauey blurts out:

Hey Jack, maybe the women of Kentucky would like an answer about YOUR frat (SAE [Sigma Alpha Epsilon]) at Duke which was known for raping women. Why was your frat kicked off campus Jack? Why did the national SAE organization disown your chapter at Duke, Jack? Could it be because of all the rapes and sexual assaults?

All that important 'hit aside, we come back to Dr Paul's position on equality for faith-based organizations in receiving gov funds to conduct social services much more cheaply than the gov can. That's why the gov puts out money to secularistic organizations, and presently allows the faith-baseds service orgs to compete against the secularistics, often winning the available funds becawz their applications and performance records are better than those of the secularistics.

Rand Paul is an optometrist with blindspots that prevent him from seeing what great good faith-baseds do for down-and-out folks in need of help, but which orgs need better funding than their own fundraising and volunteers can provide. I woud never vote for a candidate l+k Paul becawz of the blindness of his brand of Libertarianism. Were Paul to be elected, he woud undoubtedly be a strong influence in the Tea Party Caucus in Congress, and that means he'd have too much destructive influence on gov social assistance of all kinds, turning these programs entirely over to the secularists. That's not pluraliformity. And that's not Christian compassion. However, the alternative in Kentucky's Senate election campaign is self-r+tchus dumpster Jack Conway, whose overweening ambition leads him to stop at nothing to get a six-year term in the Senate.

Were I voting in Kentucky, I think I'd have to hold my nose and vote for Paul, praying for him that the Lord woud break his subchristian political ideology and lead him to an authentically Christian political vision. I can't believe that all, or most, Christian Libertarians and Christians participants in the Tea Party, are l+k Dr Rand Paul. That woud be a heartbreaker.