As of Wednesday, November 7, the electoral count (FoxNews) stands at 303 – 206 in Obama’s favor, with only Florida having yet to complete their tallies. Aside from being shocked (I allowed myself to succumb to the eccentricities of the Morris/Rove/Barone/Ulsterman-WHI “Romeny’s-going-to-win-by-a-landslide” contingent), the bottom line is that Team Obama simply had a better ground game:
The story of the election: Obama turned out his base. As a percentage of the electorate, young voters (18-29) actually increased by a point. So did turnout among Latinos. And turnout among blacks matched 2008. O’s ground game was simply amazing.
On the exceptionally negative side, the following must be fully understood (and I’m convinced it’s not, by anyone on any side, yet):
The Senate (for the next two years) is controlled by the Democrats. This means that even if the GOP-controlled House decides to, say, draw up articles of impeachment over a hot issue like the Benghazi massacre, it would very likely be stopped in the Senate
The House, while still solidly in the control of the GOP (with no less Tea Party influence than it is now), gives Obama every chance to simply route Executive Orders around them without thinking twice
On the other hand, now that there are 30 States with Republican Governors, Tenth Amendment-based initiatives have become significantly easier to come by. Consider that 6 out of 10 such ballot initiatives passed last night by overwhelming majorities. Ironically, they were set to satisfy both the right (healthcare mandate nullifications) and the left (consumer-based marijuana usage).
Could it be possible that if the Federalists in DC become so overly zealous with mandates that the States — at least the most red ones — would rise up and say, “no?” Maybe, but the threat of federal money removal is a strong incentive to keep States in line.
Beyond the statecraft of it all, it is my opinion that the GOP needs to take itself to the proverbial woodshed and get a personality makeover:
This race was not about ideology. On a local basis, Tea Party-backed candidates had no problems getting elected. It was only when certain pro-life senatorial candidates decided to dive head-first into foot-in-mouth syndrome did they lose handily
White people no longer make up the majority of the electorate, even as much as they did ten years ago. Multiple ethnic groups are becoming bigger pluralities in the electorate
Hurricane Sandy was Obama’s uncontrolled November Surprise. His being seen alongside New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was essentially the icing on the cake, likely giving Obama the extra point or two of “looking presidential” that he needed at the right time to push over the finish line. Why? Well, if Obama can be seen amicably appearing to deal with a disastrous situation next to an exceptionally outspoken Republican Governor, then the perception is that Obama can just as easily reach across the aisle as Romney could have
Let’s not forget that it is nevertheless exceptionally difficult to unseat an incumbent President.
In my view, here is a key question that the GOP must successfully answer if it is to succeed at the national level, going forward:
Why is it that Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. can win a landslide victory from the Mayo Clinic but Rep. Allen West cannot? Seriously. What’s the difference?
I think the GOP has a trust and an image problem with a growing segment of the electorate. Why can’t the GOP be trusted with “minority” votes, even though its ranks include the likes of Gov. Mendendez, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, and Sen. Rubio?
Tell me this: What’s the first reaction that Democrats have when the GOP speaks of one of the aforementioned individuals? You’re just putting a token [insert favorite ethnic group here] on the dashboard; it doesn’t mean anything.
Am I right? OK, then how does one turn this around?
Hint: In 2016, if the GOP does not nominate someone like Sen. Rubio as its standard-bearer, they will lose. I’m going to go ahead and call it, merely one day after the 2012 General Election.
Do I think the GOP has a conservative message issue? Yes. But conservatism isn’t the actual issue. Remember the bad logic? Just because someone possesses contraception doesn’t mean they will automatically go out and have sex with someone. Just because someone possesses a gun doesn’t mean they’re going to automatically shoot someone. Wrap such social issues up in libertarian terms and you win the argument.
The path to victory: Aggressively reach out to ethnic groups like your party depends on it (I think it does), and demonstrate that taking responsibility is both a good and cool thing to do. Then, celebrate the crap out of such victories at all levels in the organization and, in time, the trust and image issues will take care of themselves.
People think the system is stacked against them, and maybe it is. But people also conduct their lives in a generally conservative manner. Take advantage of that.
This comment from Prof. Jacobson’s bog links to EvilBloggerLady, further confirming my thoughts RE: expanding demographics (read: you can’t count solely on only white people voting with you to win nationally anymore).
Also: Wisconsin’s State government is now in full GOP control, even though they’re not sending senatorial candidate Tommy Thompson nor their share of electoral votes for Mitt Romney to Washington.
Regardless, Veep candidate and re-elected Representative from the same State Paul Ryan will be back in the next Congress, still chairing the Budget Committee in the House.
To: Interested Parties
From: Matt Rhoades, Campaign Manager
Re: America’s Comeback Team
Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America’s Comeback Team, and it’s clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way. The Obama team’s increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they’re rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they’ve spent the past few days drowning in their own venom.
Since the announcement in Norfolk, Virginia on Saturday:
Average Donation: $81
% New Donors: 68%
Facebook: +510,000 — Now 4,360,000
Twitter: +54,000 — Now 861,000
Paul Ryan Social
45,000+ sign up to volunteer online
President Obama is on defense over his $716 billion raid of current Medicare beneficiaries to pay for Obamacare, and allowing the hospital trust fund to go broke by the time those aged 50 or below are Medicare eligible. The political director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warned this week that the issue could cost Democrats the election.
At the same, time, the Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class is gaining traction. Voters in the swing states believe that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a better plan than Barack Obama and Joe Biden “to reduce the deficit, create jobs and get the economy moving.”
Polling data shows Romney gaining since the announcement. Both Gallup and Rasmussen show us leading Obama in national polling, and recent statewide polling shows us picking up ground in Ohio and Virginia.
While President Obama’s team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation. America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America’s comeback will begin on November 6th.
 Data from “Purple Poll” conducted August 13-14, 2012.
Dinesh D’Souza, a fellow at the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute has joined forces with Gerald R. Molen, the conservative producer of Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, Twister, Days of Thunder, and Hook to create a movie doing what some thought would never happen — begin the official vetting process for the current White House occupant.
2016: Obama’s America explores the past influences of Barack Hussein Obama — especially his anti-colonialism and anti-capitalist socialism — and what it could portend for another four years of the Obama era.
2016TheMove.com’s site has a complete news section that shares many of the successes and battles that a yet-to-be-released movie such as this was destined to produce. There is also a theaters page displaying where you can go see the movie.
Here’s the trailer:
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly interviewed Dinesh D’Souza:
There is also an interview with Obama’s half brother, George Obama.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (United States Constitution, Second Amendment)
Have you ever wanted to better understand what it means to be a well-armed citizenry? What happened in the great State of Tennessee on August 2, 1946 gives great context to what, in my opinion, the founding fathers meant by a militia “being necessary to the security of a free State.”
Constitution.org provides two great links that help provide the background and timeline for this event:
Another staggeringly and morbidly humorous clip comes from CNN, wherein Wolf Blitzer asks DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz 8 times to state the facts of where she gets the idea that Medicare for individuals 55 years old and older will not receive the same benefits as they now get — with no definite answer:
Yet, ABC’s Jake Tapper, in interviewing Obama in November of 2009, showed that 1/3 of ObamaCare funding comes from cuts to Medicare:
I now introduce the first barrage of what it means to be on the offensive in a presidential election since the Ryan pick:
Romney/Ryan: “Paid In:”
Romney/Ryan: “America Deserves Better:”
Americans for Prosperity: “Has President Obama Earned Your Vote?:”
I’m not sure how many had the chance to see the following video as posted by the Washington Examineryesterday, but it brings up a very simple point that I had been bandying about in my head and rhetorically bouncing off of my wife.
First, the video, in which a Christian-based group confronts an abortion doctor over abortions, contains some alleged fresh meat, as it were, as the doctor mentions being able to prevent “ugly black babies” (the doctor’s characterization) from being in the world:
Now, you can go read the comments from the posting itself (875 as of this posting) or on the YouTube page (nearly 76,000 views alongside 437 comments) and get all lathered up over what the doctor said.
I argue that both this group (allegedly Christian and pro-life) and the doctor (allegedly an abortionist and apparent Democrat supporter, though for the purposes of this discussion, really doesn’t mean squat) are completely off base on this topic.
In fact, I even argue that the terms, “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are completely meant to be disinformational regarding the truth of abortion.
Philosophically, all humans have a choice as to what their behaviors are. So, one could conceivably (no pun intended) say that a person who is “pro-choice” chooses life, just as a non-pro-lifer could be considered a “pro-choice” individual who chooses to take the life of an unborn child.
“…taking the life of an unborn child?” Yes. Let’s take this one step further. We as humans all have choices to make, and physiologically, the fetus (Latin for “unborn child”) is a separate being inside of the mother. In other words, the unborn child is not a part of the mother’s body in any way; to deny this simple fact stops the argument here. One cannot proceed any further without accepting these facts. Even further, I will assume that human life begins at conception, not at some arbitrary, vague, subjective point in the uterus or vagina on his or her way out of the mother. This would be the moral aspect.
Now, let’s recap once more, because to get to the ultimate point requires us to be completely clear regarding logic, rationality, morality and definitions each step of the way.
First, we have choices to make. We can kill children (by overtly doing something, or by covertly no doing something), or we can save children (again, overtly or covertly).
Second, the unborn child inside of the mother is a completely distinct being from the mother and is imbued with life at conception.
Given the above, here’s the point:
You cannot separate the act of sexual intercourse from the act of carrying a baby.
Well, you could, but then (to be really crass about it) you’d have to consider whether there is such a thing as a woman who is sort of pregnant. In the world of rationality, she either is or is not pregnant.
If you’re going to have sexual intercourse, you are essentially saying that you’re willing to take on the risk (to whatever degree) that you will become pregnant and will subsequently have additional choices to make.
I find it morbidly fascinating that the following is also a very controversial statement to make, but it’s worth making:
If you don’t want to consider having an abortion, then don’t have sex.
I think, unfortunately, that the presence of condoms and other contraceptives in our society have presented us with the illusion that somehow we can separate sexual intercourse from pregnancy. What I think we all have to realize is that such an illusion truly is just that. All we’ve done is reduced the degree to which a pregnancy can occur; we have not removed it 100%, and the verbiage on contraceptives states this very clearly.
OK! After having likely pissed off a good portion of anyone who reads my blog at this point, I’m going to go even further, because now we need to address the two parties in the above video.
First, the doctor who performs abortions. I’d question whether or not that such a doctor is not practicing a contradiction in terms. He was theoretically supposed to submit to the Hippocratic Oath, the modern version of which reads as follows:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not”, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Is not killing a child “play[ing] at God?” I’m just asking.
Second, the Christian pro-life group. While I completely appreciate individuals who are willing to adopt kids as an excellent alternative to abortions, I think that right-wingers really need to take several steps back in the process.
Let’s imagine that we believe that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution says that all individual citizens have the unmitigated right to keep and bear weapons. Let’s also say that we think, as a society, that some of those weapons are more dangerous than others (a rather comical suggestion, but I digress). Let’s also say that some in our society believe that if we possess a gun, then that means we’re going to use it at the absolute first opportunity (say, immediately upon leaving the gun shop in which the firearm was received). In other words, it’s the non-sequitor argument that says that if we possess a firearm, that means we are going to use it, without exception.
Why is this a fallacy? Simply put, possessing a firearm does not necessarily mean that it’s going to be used for hunting, for murder, or any other action. It could simply have been bought to complete a firearm collection and will never, henceforth, be used in the commission of anything.
Now, let’s take this to contraceptives (and let’s suspend whether or not one believes contraceptives are themselves moral for the purposes of this discussion). Let’s say that Bobby goes out and buys a condom at the local Wal-Mart. Let’s say that Suzy happens to be his girlfriend, and both of them are thinking of not just dating each other, but are heading towards becoming engaged to be married. Let’s say that they spend of a lot of time with each other and many opportunities present themselves where Bobby and Suzy could have sex with each other.
They have a choice, all the time. They could choose to forgo abstinence and decide to have sex before marriage, or they could choose not to. In either case, Bobby still possesses a condom, though its mere possession does not mean that it is going to automatically be used.
Let’s take this even further. What are the parents thinking? How old are these two? Do they still live at home, or do they live by themselves, maybe with roommates who may or may not share their moral value system?
Have the parents discussed with Bobby and Suzy the consequences of sexual intercourse? Have Bobby and Suzy had to learn the “birds and the bees” (what a crock!) on their own? Have the parents or the church organization leaders ever had discussions regarding sex? Regarding abstinence? Regarding contraceptives? Were Bobby and Suzy shamed into not asking such questions?
Maybe you’re getting my point, maybe you’re not. However, I believe all behaviors have an origination point, and I believe that that should originate with the family first, and then the church, second. If the family and the church are not directly dealing with sexuality, then these additional parties are really the ones to blame for even having to consider the possibility of abortion.
God invented sex, God invented hormones, and God invented for men to be attracted to women and vice versa. He even gifted Tommy Nelson and many others (www.songofsolomon.com, www.gotothehub.com) to show what I believe is ultimately the most moral way to deal with attraction, relationships, sexuality, and conflict that are a part of every man/woman relationship on the planet.
Now, if only we’d take advantage of these opportunities to prepare for the cause and effect of sex, regardless of what our background was coming to the truth. I know my wife and I did.
After all, if we’d pursue the truth, there’d be significantly less of a need for doctors who perform abortions to begin with!
P.S.: I purposefully have not talked about rape, incest, and the life of the mother, situations that must be handled a bit more empathetically and professionally above and beyond what I’ve posted, above. Regardless, it remains my belief that such horrid situations are cascading effects of a society that wishes to shun God.
Judge Malihi decided to use dicta from a previous case in Indiana (Ankeny) as the main deciding factor of presidential natural born citizenship, even though a footnote in Judge Malihi’s decision disclaims that the Ankeny ruling didn’t actually define natural born citizenship
Dr. Taitz, rather ironically, did not actually vet the “experts” to whom she turned with respect to allegedly debunking Obama’s posted birth certificates, Social Security number, etc. Therefore, Judge Malihi rejected virtually all of that evidence en mass as being “unpersuasive”
Mr. Irion, as was expected, will be appealing this recommendation to the Georgia Appellate Court
On one hand, I am absolutely happy that a Court — via previously-legislated State statute — has taken up the basic – though not exhaustive – merits of presidential eligibility. This has forced even the opposition to such questioning to continuously move the proverbial goalposts insofar as managing expectations has been concerned.
On the other hand, we still do not have a definitive determination of exactly who qualifies as a natural born citizen with respect to presidential eligibility. As I’ve pointed out previously, even the State Department admits to this, and Judge Malihi did not move the question any further towards definition, as he clearly admits in his own decision.
Time for me to go off the reservation:
What would have happened if many of the previous federal and State-based challenges would not have happened, where the Plaintiffs should have done a better job at researching issues such as standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and the like? While I fully admit to appreciating the copious amounts of energy spent on pushing forward in these cases, after having essentially failed at a handful of them, what evidence was there that n+1 cases were going to succeed?
For one thing, the Ankeny v. Daniels case would never have occurred. What, then, would Judge Malihi have used as a reference point in his own decision?
Would Mr. Jablonski have actually showed up, minus Obama (that would have been slightly more helpful)?
Removing all emotion from the issue, should any other nationwide, State-based ballot challenge go forward, would it not be true that said challenge would simply use Judge Malihi’s decision in the same way that Judge Malihi used the Ankeny dicta, thereby maintain the current inertia of the issue?
Anyone can get pissed off at me all they want regarding what I just said, but sometimes it pays to step back from the issue and regain some perspective. Maybe expending so much energy towards the same process and expecting different results every time doesn’t mean there’s an issue with the Judiciary; it could just mean that you’ve got a bad strategy, and beating your head against the same proverbial brick wall will only open up more wounds.