Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Buford]

George W. Bush posts better favorability ratings than Mitt Romney in new Bloomberg survey

For all the talk about whether Mitt Romney should distance himself from George W. Bush –and the policies of the last GOP White House — a new survey shows that the former president actually has better favorability ratings than the Republican nominee.

A Bloomberg News National Poll released Wednesday has Bush receiving a favorable rating from 46 percent of those surveyed and an unfavorable rating from 49 percent. That’s compared to Romney’s 43 percent favorable and 50 percent unfavorable.

Bush also fared better than Vice President Joe Biden (42 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable) and the Republican Party as a whole (41 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable).

The survey shows first and foremost that Romney is struggling in his effort to unseat President Barack Obama — a fact highlighted by several other polls conducted ahead of the first presidential debate next Wednesday.

But it also shows how Bush — following the trend of other former presidents — has seen his popularity improve since leaving the White House, when his favorable numbers in some surveys hovered around the mid-30s.

The ratings are an improvement for Bush from even earlier this year, when a CNN/ORC poll found that Bush ranked as the least popular living ex-president. And as Ari Fleischer, Bush’s White House press secretary from 2001 to 2003, noted on Twitter Thursday, the numbers are the former president’s “best level in years.”

More from the link.

[endzone_dave]

I like how not wanting to mandate free birth control and not wanting to fund a for-profit organizaiton that performs 300,000 abortions every years is called a "war on women".

[twa]

I like how not wanting to mandate free birth control and not wanting to fund a for-profit organizaiton that performs 300,000 abortions every years is called a "war on women".

The weaker sex needs special consideration....unless they are a fetus

[Larry]

Thats claimed in just about every election though and no matter who wins, these things never change in reality.

You sure about nothing changing?

Seems I've been seeing a whole lot of Red States passing all kinds of things, up to and including Constitutional Amendments, trying all kinds of different ways to change that.

Do you really want to risk your freedom on the assumption that well, the deliberately packed Supreme Court will prevent all of these things from having any effect whatsoever?

---------- Post added September-28th-2012 at 12:10 PM ----------

I like how not wanting to mandate free birth control and not wanting to fund a for-profit organizaiton that performs 300,000 abortions every years is called a "war on women".

I agree. Even though the law already prohibits government funding of abortions (in most cases), and even though the law already requires them to keep completely seperate books, to make sure that government funds don't cross over from one operation to the other, that's not good enough.

Obviously, the only way to make sure that taxpayer dollars aren't paying for abortion, is to deny all funding, no matter what the purpose, to any organization that performs abortions.

While we're at it, I think we need an identical rule for any religious organization. After all, can't run the risk that taxpayer dollars might be paying to promote a religion.

You with me?

And once we get that law, I think the next one should prohibit all taxpayer dollars going to any organization that does anything political. Lobbying, campaign contributions, whatever.

[endzone_dave]

You sure about nothing changing?

Seems I've been seeing a whole lot of Red States passing all kinds of things, up to and including Constitutional Amendments, trying all kinds of different ways to change that.

Do you really want to risk your freedom on the assumption that well, the deliberately packed Supreme Court will prevent all of these things from having any effect whatsoever?

---------- Post added September-28th-2012 at 12:10 PM ----------



I agree. Even though the law already prohibits government funding of abortions (in most cases), and even though the law already requires them to keep completely seperate books, to make sure that government funds don't cross over from one operation to the other, that's not good enough.

Obviously, the only way to make sure that taxpayer dollars aren't paying for abortion, is to deny all funding, no matter what the purpose, to any organization that performs abortions.

While we're at it, I think we need an identical rule for any religious organization. After all, can't run the risk that taxpayer dollars might be paying to promote a religion.

You with me?

And once we get that law, I think the next one should prohibit all taxpayer dollars going to any organization that does anything political. Lobbying, campaign contributions, whatever.

Nothing strikes a nerve more with a Democrat than threating to eliminate funding to their most cherished orgainzation in the world.

[Predicto]

Nothing strikes a nerve more with a Democrat than threating to eliminate funding to their most cherished orgainzation in the world.

The Redskins?

[The Evil Genius]

It's not the ACLU or NAMBLA, Predicto?

twa told me it was.

[Predicto]

It's not the ACLU or NAMBLA, Predicto?

twa told me it was.

Actually, at the last vote of the Supreme Soviet, the vote was evenly split between Nambla, the Nazi Party, and Hezbollah.

[Larry]

Nothing strikes a nerve more with a Democrat than threating to eliminate funding to their most cherished orgainzation in the world.

Nothing like pointing out hypocrisy to get a Republican to respond with straw.

Feel like answering the question I asked?

[endzone_dave]

Nothing like pointing out hypocrisy to get a Republican to respond with straw.

Feel like answering the question I asked?

I was just pointing out how silly the term "War on Women" was. I didn't want to change the thread into a 40 page argument on abortion.

[SnyderShrugged]

You sure about nothing changing?

Seems I've been seeing a whole lot of Red States passing all kinds of things, up to and including Constitutional Amendments, trying all kinds of different ways to change that.

Do you really want to risk your freedom on the assumption that well, the deliberately packed Supreme Court will prevent all of these things from having any effect whatsoever?

---------- Post added September-28th-2012 at 12:10 PM ----------



I agree. Even though the law already prohibits government funding of abortions (in most cases), and even though the law already requires them to keep completely seperate books, to make sure that government funds don't cross over from one operation to the other, that's not good enough.

Obviously, the only way to make sure that taxpayer dollars aren't paying for abortion, is to deny all funding, no matter what the purpose, to any organization that performs abortions.

While we're at it, I think we need an identical rule for any religious organization. After all, can't run the risk that taxpayer dollars might be paying to promote a religion.

You with me?

And once we get that law, I think the next one should prohibit all taxpayer dollars going to any organization that does anything political. Lobbying, campaign contributions, whatever.

I'm positive I said nothing has changed nor will at the Federal level.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

HUGE Jim Webb fan

Vid at the link...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ts-webbed.html

Romney Gets Webbed

Not only has Obama managed to turn the GOP's advantage on foreign policy into a disadvantage (although the neocons get much of the credit), the Republican candidate now gets slammed by a former Republican Navy Secretary and actual maverick, Jim Webb, on his commitment to the men and women of the US military. The Obama campaign would be smart to get this into a few ads for areas with high numbers of veterans. Money quote:

Governor Romney and I are about the same age. Like millions of others in our generation, we came to adulthood facing the harsh realities of the Vietnam War.

2.7 million in our age group went to Vietnam, a war which eventually took the lives of 58,000 young Americans and cost another 300,000 wounded. The Marine Corps lost 100,000 killed or wounded in that war. During the year I was in Vietnam, 1969, our country lost twice as many dead as we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past 10 years of war. 1968 was worse. 1967 was about the same. Not a day goes by when I do not think about the young Marines I was privileged to lead.

This was a time of conscription, where every American male was eligible to be drafted. People made choices about how to deal with the draft, and about military service. I have never envied or resented any of the choices that were made as long as they were done within the law. But those among us who stepped forward to face the harsh unknowns and the lifelong changes that can come from combat did so with the belief that their service would be honored, and that our leaders would, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, care for those who had borne the battle, and for their widows and their children.

Those young Marines that I led have grown older now. They’ve lived lives of courage, both in combat and after their return, where many of them were derided by their own peers for having served. That was a long time ago. They are not bitter. They know what they did. But in receiving veterans’ benefits, they are not takers. They were givers, in the ultimate sense of that word. There is a saying among war veterans: “All gave some, some gave all.” This is not a culture of dependency. It is a part of a long tradition that gave this country its freedom and independence. They paid, some with their lives, some through wounds and disabilities, some through their emotional scars, some through the lost opportunities and delayed entry into civilian careers which had already begun for many of their peers who did not serve.

And not only did they pay. They will not say this, so I will say it for them. They are owed, if nothing else, at least a mention, some word of thanks and respect, when a presidential candidate who is their generational peer makes a speech accepting his party’s nomination to be commander-in-chief. And they are owed much more than that — a guarantee that we will never betray the commitment that we made to them and to their loved ones.

[Ellis]

Webb is spot on.

[JimboDaMan]

I like how not wanting to mandate free birth control and not wanting to fund a for-profit organizaiton that performs 300,000 abortions every years is called a "war on women".

You like that? Great! Just think of what people would say if the Republicans were eliminating funding for women's cancer screenings, instead of abortion.

Oh wait...

[Duckus]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...medium=twitter