Obama's Reelection Validates America's Spiritual Apostasy and Moral Decline

By William Owens, Jr.
February 16, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Nothing is more repulsive to God than having the highest ranks of a nation’s leadership – a nation that He providentially brought forth – refuse to acknowledge the continual need for His wisdom, mercy and guidance in every sector of society. Even worse is to persist in rejecting Him in the midst of dismal failure, thus confirming that such a nation has utterly rejected God.

The recent presidential inauguration was a present-day rebellion of kings and nations who reigned before us. It is an affront to a holy God. The event was replete with pious pomp, snobbery, and scoffs at God’s very existence, as demonstrated by Obama’s praise as the Lesbian and Gay Band Association marched by during the Inaugural Parade and his public statement against traditional marriage when he advocated same sex relationships. “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law," he said during his inaugural address, "for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." Vice President Biden also confirmed this fist-to-God arrogance by declaring, “I spent too much time with all of you not to know you feel it with every fiber in your being that there’s nothing – nothing – this country is incapable of.”

While the inauguration of “King” Obama was an event celebrated within the natural realm of America, it was also a clear message released within the realm of the spiritual: JUDGMENT. You see, Christians might be mocked and called “weird,” but historical documents and evidence prove that we have always been correct regarding history. Because there is no intelligent response or historic evidence to argue otherwise, the critics must claim, “He casteth out devils with devils.” This truth goes back to biblical times when the Pharisees were confronted with the truth of Jesus’ holiness. The evidence was overwhelming. He could work miracles, heal the sick, feed the multitudes, and even resurrect the dead. The only way they could feel justified in their rebellious attitude toward Jesus laying claim as God’s son was to demonize and eventually kill him (or so they thought.) Their illogical response was, “He casteth out devils with devils.” They refused to acknowledge Him as God, and thus, rejected their godly heritage to the detriment of their tiny nation, Israel. Remember, He laid down His life and then He rose again.

Today, the only way non-believers in America can justify the rejection of our godly heritage and the hand of providence on America’s DNA is by reverting to the same course of action: accuse the godly of phobias, narrow-mindedness, and being out of touch with the feelings of others. Those who refuse to compromise with historic evidence make powerful claims that a new day of tolerance – of the need to get along – has arrived. They scrub away historic evidence of the fall of previous nations when immorality, rejection of God from the Public Square, and homosexuality became validated by law. But alas, it will not work, no matter how many toasts are given and executive orders are enacted while good men do nothing. Just as Jesus raised the dead to show that He had life in himself, God will judge America to show that our country’s life has always been in Him.

History speaks clearly about the presence of God in America’s origins.

The Continental Congress, in its first session on September 6, 1774, passed this resolution: "Resolved, that the Rev. Mr. Duché be desired to open Congress tomorrow morning with prayer, at Carpenter's Hall, at 9 o'clock."

The following day, Duché's prayer pleaded: "O Lord! our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all kingdoms, empires, and governments. Look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on thee … All this we ask in the name, and through the merits of Jesus Christ thy Son and our Savior. Amen" (Thatcher's Military Biography, p. 121).

Benjamin Franklin stated in a speech to the Continental Convention of 1787: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." (The Works of Benjamin Franklin, by John Bigelow, p. 377)

Decades later, John Adams confirmed his conviction of God’s eternal footprint on America, the original intent of those formative years, in an 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite…Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God" (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, from Quincy in The Adams-Jefferson Letters).

Even today, many people see the presence of God in our origins. In an online commentary dated July 2, 2009, John Miller states, “America's Declaration of Independence is as much a declaration of dependence on Divine Providence as it is a declaration of independence from an oppressive monarch.”

Truth is not subjective to our interpretations. Gravity does not require a vote to work; if you throw a rock off a cliff, it will soar downward, no matter if we want it to or not. That’s gravity. Likewise, truth is not what we think it to be, want it to be or will it to be, and over the next four years, prophecy will prove that truth belongs to God alone. It will be evident that it was God who gave birth to America. It was God who inspired our founders. Men, who, despite their differences, agreed that unless God saved them from tyrannical government, they would be once again enslaved, designed our country.

America did not come about through subjective thinking or reasoning. It came about through prayer, humility and the good will of good men who desired a country where they could freely worship God and live morally sound lives. They created a country for which a constitution was devised to guide morally conscious people – people able to conduct themselves through the construct of conscience and the basic principle of doing unto others as we would have others to do unto us. Such high aspirations did not simply manifest from under man’s filthy feet. They emanated forth from the hearts of men who had been touched by God Almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Today, spiritual apostasy is upon America and we are facing judgment. Our leaders have forsaken the God who secured our freedoms. Before we had a constitution, we had the Holy Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith that brought our founding fathers to this land, guided them, and granted them the wisdom to frame documents that have shaped our country: the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

However, God has been ousted, and with Him, all that we have enjoyed these last 237 years will surely follow close behind if we don’t repent and truly amend our ways as individuals and collectively as a nation. It will be the clearest message America has ever experienced at the very cost of the freedoms, wealth, and favor we have enjoyed. Perhaps, it is time. The inauguration of Barack Obama is perhaps the clearest message to America that God has decided, because the people have decided. The people have chosen their “king” and as God told the prophet Samuel, “They have not rejected you; they have rejected me” (1 Samuel 8:7).

This brings me to the issue of spiritual leadership in America. I often wonder, “why the leaders of Christendom today are not speaking directly to power specifically regarding the spiritual decay that ?” As we witness the lack of specifics from our political leadership, we must not forget their spiritual counterparts. Why are the mega-ministries so careful as to not speak specific truth to power. Speak truth to those who are allowing laws to redefine our spiritual identity?

In an interview, TD Jakes said that it is "out of [his] lane" to speak on the topic of gun control, he believes "something has to be done, not only for those that are mentally ill, but I also I think that we have to be careful about people who are under such stress today that they start out well but they don't end up well." Read more here.

Joel Olsten on the today’s show takes a I don’t know approach. When "Today" host Matt Lauer asked Osteen if he believes it is his responsibility to take a stand regarding guns in the U.S., Osteen responded: "I really don't Matt, because political issues divide us. For what I'm doing, I'm trying to reach as many people as possible. There are good people on both sides of the aisle, and I don't know what the best answer there is either, but I just try to guide them and give them hope in this time of need," Osteen added. Read more here.

I have listened to comments of a few leaders of mega ministries and it is my opinion that they are falling short of speaking specific truth to power to offer solutions, not mere sound bite safe answers that will not provoke change. Such leaders need to speak truth to a point of exposing the real problems of our nation, but instead, they remain in a “safe zone.” Why should we take them seriously? Is there any noteworthy plea that convicts and drives people to their knees, or at least captures the mind to reconsider the direction that our political leaders are taking us? There appears to be lacking a message of, “America is in trouble and this is why.”

Mega ministry leaders are invited on national news and have a stage to speak truth, but instead, they play it safe. While I cannot judge their hearts and have not sat down with them one on one, I believe they can do more. A lot more.

Sad to say, many ministries, by their silence have sided with the gospel of inclusion and has chosen the path of peace where there is no peace to be had. They are the teachers of an age in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been saturated with compromise and lies.

Furthermore, the black preachers and churches that have immortalized Barack Obama because of his pigmentation have been a disgrace to God’s kingdom and a stumbling block to those whose souls they have been entrusted to lead. If they think they will not have to be accountable for being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, siding with a mere man who has legalized sacrificing the unborn on the altars of Baal and the public rejection of biblically-defined marriage, they are truly blind. This seems to demonstrate that perhaps they were not even called by God or they, too, have rejected him. Even those who choose to remain in a political party that publically rejected God from its platform refuse to blush at their own apostate hearts. They may not believe it today, but there will be consequences, because God is just and will not be mocked.

I miss the days of fiery preachers who could not care less what the government thought of their non-profit status – preachers like Jimmy Swaggart, who would hold his Bible up high, declare the righteousness of God, and warn America to stay on the narrow path! It worked. No doubt, his fall from grace was tragic, yet it does not nullify the truth he preached, and by the grace of God, he continues to preach to this day.

I have no doubt that there is a remnant left amongst the faithful, and to that remnant, I say, “the days ahead will be a trial of your faith such as you have never known. It is imperative that you settle in your heart and mind that you will hold to God’s unchanging hand and not forsake His word as we witness a transition in America that is already unfolding before us.” While our government’s leaders believe they can regulate men’s hearts by taking away guns and create peace by legalizing gay marriage, it will become evident that it cannot. Killings will only increase and immorality will sink to new lows.

While our politicians on both side of the aisle argue, debate, and avoid responsibility, I, as both a minister of the gospel and a prophetic voice, I warn those on Capitol Hill to make an appeal to God for mercy. Run to Him. Join hands with godly men and women, and run to the God who made the hill from which you govern. Repent and God might turn away the judgment that you and others have brought upon this nation and that we as a people have asked for, because we have chosen ungodly leaders. We are reaping the godless country we deserve. Only an appeal to God can stave off the ravages of the enemy and turn the tide that our land might be healed. It’s our choice as a people and a nation to fully repent and leave the outcome to Him.

William Owens is the Author of: Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts

© 2013 William Owens, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

Source

.

Gay Vote Proved a Boon for Obama

Joshua Lott for The New York Times
A gay pride parade in Chicago in June. President Obama had more than a three-to-one edge among gay voters, exit polls found.

By MICAH COHEN
Published: November 15, 2012


While President Obama’s lopsided support among Latino and other minority voters has been a focus of postelection analysis, the overwhelming support he received from another growing demographic group — Americans who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual — has received much less attention.


Multimedia

Interactive Feature

Obama’s Diverse Base of Support

But the backing Mr. Obama received from gay voters also has a claim on having been decisive. Mitt Romneyand Mr. Obama won roughly an equal share of votes among straight voters nationwide, exit polls showed. And, a study argues, Mr. Romney appears to have won a narrow victory among straight voters in the swing states of Ohio and Florida.

Mr. Obama’s more than three-to-one edge in exit polls among the 5 percent of voters who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual was more than enough to give him the ultimate advantage, according to the study, by Gary J. Gates of the Williams Institute at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, in conjunction with Gallup. The results are consistent with earlier research on the number and political beliefs of gay voters.

Democrats have been winning big over Republicans among gay voters, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americansand Jews. Some of the groups are relatively small, but together they make up about one-third of the electorate, forcing Republicans to capture much of the remaining two-thirds to win elections. By comparison, white evangelical voters, who vote overwhelmingly for Republicans, make up about one-fourth of the electorate, and their numbers are not growing as rapidly.

As with Latinos and Asian-Americans, the number of voters who say they are gay appears to be growing. Only 1.9 percent of Americans over 65 call themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual, according to the Gallup survey, while 3.2 percent of those between 30 and 49, and 6.4 percent of those between 18 and 29 do.

“In the younger population, there is a much wider range in the geography and ethnicity of those who are identifying as L.G.B.T.,” Dr. Gates said, using a common term for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That range now extends well beyond major cities and into multiple swing states.

As Republicans plan to reach out to Hispanics and Asian-Americans, another question is whether they would also help themselves by improving their standing among gay voters. Some analysts say Republicans should try to do so, in part to win over moderate straight voters, while others see any such effort as having more risk than upside.

Research by Patrick J. Egan, a professor of politics and public policy at New York University, suggests that gay voters may prove difficult to bring into the Republican tent. Many of them “aren’t swingable because they have liberal positions on a whole bunch of issues besides gay rights,” Dr. Egan said.

Exit polls showed that 76 percent of voters who identified as gay supported Mr. Obama last week, and that 22 percent supported Mr. Romney. Among straight people, each candidate received 49 percent of the vote.

If Republican candidates move to the center on gay rights, they might also risk losing support among cultural conservatives.

“I think it would be a mistake for the party to abandon its moral values,” said J. Hogan Gidley, the national communications director for Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential run. Instead, Mr. Gidley said, the Republican Party’s low levels of support among gay voters can be outweighed by better messaging to other voters, particularly about same-sex marriage.

“We’ve lost the buzzword battle,” Mr. Gidley said, “that marriage is a ‘right.’ ”

Other Republican strategists, however, say that their party’s stances on social issues like marriage are alienating straight voters, too.

Public support for same-sex marriage and civil unions has climbed steadily since 2004. Recent polls show that support for same-sex marriage now outweighs opposition to it. Surveys by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life have shown that women andyounger people support same-sex marriage at substantially higher rates than do men and older voters.

“We have a very good message, a good plan,” said R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that pushes for gay rights, referring to the Republican Party’s small-government agenda. “But it’s been drowned out by the cacophony and the noise that is perceived as anti-immigrant, or anti-L.G.B.T., or anti-women.”

While polls show that a large majority of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, there are small signs of a shift in tone among Republican officeholders. When Mr. Obamaendorsed same-sex marriage in May, the response from Republican leaders was relatively muted.

Republicans in Congress “will tell me behind closed doors that this is the direction we need to go as a party,” Mr. Cooper said, “but publicly they’re not doing that.”

If the Republican Party does not make inroads among gay voters along with other minority groups, he said, the party risks going the way of the Whigs or becoming a regional party.

Mr. Romney’s loss, Mr. Cooper said, is a sign that broadening the party’s appeal is imperative. “There’s nothing fun about saying ‘I told you so,’ ” he added.


A version of this article appeared in print on November 16, 2012, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Gay Support Buoyed Obama, as the Straight Vote Split.

Source

.

Catholic numbers in Congress increase

Washington D.C., Nov 24, 2012 / 07:02 pm (EWTN News)

The U.S. Capitol Building seen from the Newseum. Credit: David Jones via Flickr.com (CC BY 2.0)

Related news:
Catholic politicians who attack Church should remember God’s judgment
Let faith be ‘constant partner,’ Boehner tells CUA grads
Mexican bishop calls Catholic politicians to keep religion in the public square
Bolivia bishops emphasize need for Catholic politicians

The 2012 elections increased the number of Catholics in Congress, with 161 now holding seats in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

There are 27 Catholic senators and 134 Catholic U.S. representatives in Congress. About 36 percent of Democrats in Congress are Catholic, compared to 25 percent of Republicans, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life says.

“While Congress remains majority Protestant, the institution is far less so today than it was 50 years ago, when nearly three-quarters of the members belonged to Protestant denominations,” the Pew Forum said Nov. 16.

The number of Catholics is an increase of five from the 2010 elections. Catholics now make up over 30 percent of Congress, while Protestants make up 56 percent.

Catholics make up about 22 percent of the U.S. population and are somewhat overrepresented in Congress. However, party divisions, dissent from Catholic teaching and other disagreements mean that Catholics are unlikely to vote as a bloc on controversial issues.

Baptists and Methodists are the two largest Protestant sub-groups, with 74 and 47 members each, followed by Presbyterians and Episcopalians, who have 43 and 38 members of Congress, respectively. There are 22 Lutherans in Congress.

There are now 32 Jewish members of Congress, a decline from 39 in 2010. There are 15 Mormons in the newly elected Congress.

Catholics, Protestants and Jews are overrepresented in Congress compared to the general population.

Americans without a religious affiliation make up about 20 percent of the population, but only one member of Congress, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) had no religious affiliation.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the first Hindu elected to Congress, while Sen. Mazie K. Hirono is the first Buddhist elected to the Senate.

The Pew Forum said the 113th Congress continues a “gradual increase in religious diversity that mirrors trends in the country as a whole.”


Source: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=6600#ixzz2DcvFB3zu

.

American Immorality Is At A Peak

November 13, 2012


When Chris Floyd is at his best, as he is below, he puts things in perspective for readers that they otherwise never confront. Obama has won reelection, and his supporters think that somehow things are going to be different. Fat chance.

While evil continues to envelop America, the public is focused on CIA director General Petraeus’ resignation. The FBI spied on him and found that he was having an affair with his biographer, a woman 20 years younger than his 60 years.

What is it with Americans and sex? Why is an illicit affair the ONLY reason for removing someone from political office? Why is it that government officials, presidents and vice presidents included, can violate US statutory law and torture people, spy on Americans without the necessary warrants, murder US citizens without due process, confine US citizens to dungeons for life without evidence and due process of law, start multi-trillion dollar wars on the basis of contrived allegations that have no basis in fact, murder civilians in seven countries, overthrow legitimate governments, and all of these massive crimes against humanity can be accepted as long as no one in Washington gets any sex out of it? Is this feminism’s contribution to American morality?

Has the United States, the hero of the cold war, become in its behavior and motivations the enemy it overcame? Why does Washington want hegemony over the world? Why does Washington want this hegemony so badly that Washington is willing to murder women, children, aid workers, husbands and fathers, village elders, anyone on earth including its own American heroes?

What is the evil that drives Washington?

How can the evil that drives Washington be contained, stamped out, prevented from destroying the human race?

What does the world do when it confronts unbridled evil, which is what Washington is?

The Reality of the “Lesser Evil”

Is This Child Dead Enough for You? ~ Chris Floyd

To all those now hailing the re-election of Barack Obama as a triumph of decent, humane, liberal values over the oozing-postule perfidy of the Republicans, a simple question:

Is this child dead enough for you?





This little boy was named Naeemullah. He was in his house — maybe playing, maybe sleeping, maybe having a meal — when an American drone missile was fired into the residential area where he lived and blew up the house next door.

[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/photos-pakistan-drone-war/?pid=999]

As we all know, these drone missiles are, like the president who wields them, super-smart, a triumph of technology and technocratic expertise. We know, for the president and his aides have repeatedly told us, that these weapons — launched only after careful consultation of the just-war strictures of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas — strike nothing but their intended targets and kill no one but “bad guys.” Indeed, the president’s top aides have testified under oath that not a single innocent person has been among the thousands of Pakistani civilians — that is, civilians of a sovereign nation that is not at war with the United States — who have been killed by the drone missile campaign of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Yet somehow, by some miracle, the missile that roared into the residential area where Naeemullah lived did not confine itself neatly to the house it struck. Somehow, inexplicably, the hunk of metal and wire and computer processors failed — in this one instance — to look into the souls of all the people in the village and ascertain, by magic, which ones were “bad guys” and then kill only them. Somehow — perhaps the missile had been infected with Romney cooties? — this supercharged hunk of high explosives simply, well, exploded with tremendous destructive power when it struck the residential area, blowing the neighborhood to smithereens.

As Wired reports, shrapnel and debris went flying through the walls of Naeemullah’s house and ripped through his small body. When the attack was over — when the buzzing drone sent with Augustinian wisdom by the Peace Laureate was no longer lurking over the village, shadowing the lives of every defenseless inhabitant with the terrorist threat of imminent death, Naeemullah was taken to the hospital in a nearby town.

This is where the picture of above was taken by Noor Behram, a resident of North Waziristan who has been chronicling the effects of the Peace Laureate’s drone war. When the picture was taken, Naeemullah was dying. He died an hour later. [http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/photos-pakistan-drone-war/?pid=998]

He died.

Is he dead enough for you?

Dead enough not to disturb your victory dance in any way? Dead enough not to trouble the inauguration parties yet to come? Dead enough not to diminish, even a little bit, your exultant glee at the fact that this great man, a figure of integrity, decency, honor and compassion, will be able to continue his noble leadership of the best nation in the history of the world?

Do you have children? Do they sit your house playing happily? Do they sleep sweetly scrunched up in their warm beds at night? Do they chatter and prattle like funny little birds as you eat with them at the family table? Do you love them? Do you treasure them? Do you consider them fully-fledged human beings, beloved souls of infinite worth?

How would you feel if you saw them ripped to shreds by flying shrapnel, in your own house? How would you feel as you rushed them to the hospital, praying every step of the way that another missile won’t hurl down on you from the sky? Your child was innocent, you had done nothing, were simply living your life in your own house — and someone thousands of miles away, in a country you had never seen, had no dealings with, had never harmed in any way, pushed a button and sent chunks of burning metal into your child’s body. How would you feel as you watched him die, watched all your hopes and dreams for him, all the hours and days and years you would have to love him, fade away into oblivion, lost forever?

What would you think about the one who did this to your child? Would you say: “What a noble man of integrity and decency! I’m sure he is acting for the best.”

Would you say: “Well, this is a bit unfortunate, but it’s perfectly understandable. The Chinese government (or Iran or al Qaeda or North Korea or Russia, etc. etc.) believed there was someone next door to me who might possibly at some point in time pose some kind of threat in some unspecified way to their people or their political agenda — or maybe it was just that my next-door neighbor behaved in a certain arbitrarily chosen way that indicated to people watching him on a computer screen thousands of miles away that he might possibly be the sort of person who might conceivably at some point in time pose some kind of unspecified threat to the Chinese (Iranians/Russians, etc.), even though they had no earthly idea who my neighbour is or what he does or believes or intends. I think the person in charge of such a program is a good, wise, decent man that any person would be proud to support. Why, I think I’ll ask him to come speak at my little boy’s funeral!”

Is that what you would say if shrapnel from a missile blew into your comfortable house and killed your own beloved little boy? You would not only accept, understand, forgive, shrug it off, move on — you would actively support the person who did it, you would cheer his personal triumphs and sneer at all those who questioned his moral worthiness and good intentions? Is that really what you would do?

Well, that is what you are doing when you shrug off the murder of little Naeemullah. You are saying he is not worth as much as your child. You are saying he is not a fully-fledged human being, a beloved soul of infinite worth. You are saying that you support his death, you are happy about it, and you want to see many more like it. You are saying it doesn’t matter if this child — or a hundred like him, or a thousand like him, or, as in the Iraqi sanctions of the old liberal lion, Bill Clinton, five hundred thousand children like Naeemullah — are killed in your name, by leaders you cheer and support. You are saying that the only thing that matters is that someone from your side is in charge of killing these children. This is the reality of “lesser evilism.” [http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/to-honor-value-of-single-life-first.html]

***

Before the election, we heard a lot of talk about this notion of the “lesser evil.” From prominent dissidents and opponents of empire like Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky and Robert Parry to innumerable progressive blogs to personal conversations, one heard this basic argument: “Yes, the drone wars, the gutting of civil liberties, the White House death squads and all the rest are bad; but Romney would be worse. Therefore, with great reluctance, holding our noses and shaking our heads sadly, we must choose the lesser evil of Obama and vote accordingly.”

I understand that argument, I really do. I don’t agree with it, as I made plain here many times before the election. I think the argument is wrong, I think our system is so far gone that even a “lesser evil” is too evil to support in any way, that such support only perpetuates the system’s unconscionable evils. But I’m not a purist, not a puritan, not a commissar or dogmatist. I understand that people of good will can come to a different conclusion, and feel that they must reluctantly choose one imperial-militarist-corporate faction over the other, in the belief that this will mean some slight mitigation of the potential evil that the other side commit if it took power. I used to think that way myself, years ago. Again, I now disagree with this, and I think that the good people who believe this have not, for whatever reason or reasons, looked with sufficient clarity at the reality of our situation, of what is actually being done, in their name, by the political faction they support.

But of course, I am not the sole arbiter of reality, nor a judge of others; people see what they see, and they act (or refrain from acting) accordingly. I understand that. But here is what I don’t understand: the sense of triumph and exultation and glee on the part of so many progressives and liberals and ‘dissidents’ at the victory of this “lesser evil.” Where did the reluctance, the nose-holding, the sad head-shaking go? Should they not be mourning the fact that evil has triumphed in America, even if, by their lights, it is a “lesser” evil?

If you really believed that Obama was a lesser evil — 2 percent less evil, as I believe Digby once described the Democrats in 2008 — if you really did find the drone wars and the White House death squads and Wall Street bailouts and absolution for torturers and all the rest to be shameful and criminal, how can you be happy that all of this will continue? Happy — and continuing to scorn anyone who opposed the perpetuation of this system.

The triumph of a lesser evil is still a victory for evil. If your neighborhood is tyrannized by warring mafia factions, you might prefer that the faction which occasionally doles out a few free hams wins out over their more skinflint rivals; but would you be joyful about the fact that your neighborhood is still being tyrannized by murderous criminals? Would you not be sad, cast down, discouraged and disheartened to see the violence and murder and corruption go on? Would you not mourn the fact that your children will have to grow up in the midst of all this?

So where is the mourning for the fact that we, as a nation, have come to this: a choice between murderers, a choice between plunderers? Even if you believe that you had to participate and make the horrific choice that was being offered to us — “Do you want the Democrat to kill these children, or do you want the Republican to kill these children?” — shouldn’t this post-election period be a time of sorrow, not vaulting triumph and giddy glee and snarky put-downs of the “losers”?

If you really are a “lesser evilist” — if this was a genuine moral choice you reluctantly made, and not a rationalization for indulging in unexamined, primitive partisanship — then you will know that we are ALL the losers of this election. Even if you believe it could have been worse, it is still very bad. You yourself proclaimed that Obama was evil — just a bit “lesser” so than his opponent. (2 percent maybe.) And so the evil that you yourself saw and named and denounced will go on. Again I ask: where is the joy and glory and triumph in this? Even if you believe it was unavoidable, why celebrate it? And ask yourself, bethink yourself: what are you celebrating? This dead child, and a hundred like him? A thousand like him? Five hundred thousand like him? How far will you go? What won’t you celebrate?

And so step by step, holding the hand of the “lesser evil,” we descend deeper and deeper into the pit.

Chris Floyd is an American writer based in the UK. His blog, “Empire Burlesque,” can be found at http://www.chris-floyd.com.


Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Source

,

Synchronicity? Or, further signs of a depraved world?

• BBC's news director, deputy 'step aside' in fallout over false sex abuse report
• Australia launches clergy sex abuse inquiry
• America’s Coming Out Election: How Gay Issues Became Mainstream 
•  In shift, gay marriage racks up wins on the ballot
• Making marihuana legal voted in Colorado and Washington, defying federal law 

....

'I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week' : Chris Matthews

Published on Nov 7, 2012 by uGotMey

Chris Matthews probably wishes he could take back his closing remarks on election night. The MSNBC anchor casually said about Hurricane Sandy and its affect on the election: "I'm so glad we had that storm last week." Now, co-anchor Rachel Maddow voiced displeasure with an "ooh." Matthews quickly, then, added a caveat: the storm was only good "politically" not "in terms of hurting people." Still, he said it "brought in the possibility for good politics," possibly referring to Obama coming together with NJ Gov. Chris Christie.

.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett is defeated, but other Maryland incumbents are reelected to Congress

(Katherine Frey/ The Washington Post ) - Congresswoman Donna Edwards, who came out in support of John Delaney at Judith A. Resnik Elementary School gives him a hug goodbye as they head out to different pollling places Tuesday in Gaithersburg, MD.

By Fredrick Kunkle and Victor Zapana, Published: November 6

Maryland’s congressional delegation emerged from Election Day looking much as it did before — except in the western part of the state, where Democrat John K. Delaney defeated Rep. Roscoe G. Bart­lett in a district redrawn to snatch the seat held by Bartlett for two decades.

“You have given me a wonderful privilege to serve my country, and I accept with great humility,” Delaney said in a speech in Potomac after Bartlett conceded defeat. “As a country, we have to confront our challenges . . . to work to restore opportunity for a broad number of Americans and put partisan bickering aside.”

Instead of seeking an 11th term in a familiar, mostly rural area that had been safe for years, Bartlett, 86, found himselffighting uphill on turf that dips into Washington’s suburbs and gives Democrats a numerical edge. Analysts had called him the nation’s most vulnerable Republican.

Also of interest was the campaign for U.S. Senate. Although early returns suggested that Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D) would fulfill projections of an easy win, Republican challenger Daniel J. Bongino appeared to be in a battle for second place with S. Rob Sobhani, a former GOP candidate who used his private fortune to power an independent campaign. But early returns gave Bongino the lead.

“Clearly, Senator Cardin has won the election,” Sobhani spokesman Sam Patten said. “The larger message is, we exceeded expectations in a race [that Sobhani] entered two months before the election.”

As voters cast ballots for the first time since the state’s congressional districts were redrawn by a Democratic-controlled legislature to produce a deeper shade of blue, all the incumbents but Bartlett cruised to victory Tuesday in House and Senate races.

In the 3rd District, Democratic Rep. JohnSarbanes won reelection easily against Republican Eric D. Knowles and Libertarian Paul W. Drgos Jr. In the 4th District, Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D), who has acquired a reputation for bucking her party on issues such as the expansion of gambling, defeated Republican Faith M. Loudoun and Libertarian Scott Soffen.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D), dean of the state’s delegation and its longest-serving member of Congress, sailed to another term representing the 5th District, where he faced Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell (D), who is the minority leader in the state House of Delegates, and two other challengers.

In the 8th District, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, dispatched Republican Ken Timmerman and two other challengers in his bid for a sixth term. “My overall impression is that there’s a lot more that unites these communities than divides them,” Val Hollen said after touring newer parts of his redrawn district.

But the most closely watched race pitted Delaney, a businessman from Potomac, against Bart­lett in a district now stuffed with Montgomery County Democrats. Bartlett, whose career has been as varied as it has been long, has held the Western Maryland seat since 1992 with little fuss. His mantra has been less government, whether discussing health care, education or defense.

With the intensity that helped him build two financial firms, Delaney first pulled off an upset victory over a primary candidate favored by Maryland’s Democratic power brokers. Then he led a disciplined, well-financed campaign that depicted Bartlett as out of touch and out of gas.

Delaney, 49, chairman and a co-founder of Chevy Chase-based CapitalSource, cast himself as a moderate Democrat whose ability to cut a deal in the world of finance would help him reach across the aisle in Congress. When Delaney talked about overhauling the economy, he sounded like someone who knows markets and trusts them, referring to himself as a “capitalist” during a debate. But he reminded voters that his path to becoming a multimillionaire began in the New Jersey home of an electrician whose union had put Delaney through college.

Delaney’s message hit home with Samuel Mok, who runs a consultant practice and lives in Montgomery. Although Mok disliked the gerrymandered district, he said he disliked Bartlett’s conservative politics even more.

“He doesn’t represent the interests of Montgomery County,” Mok, 60, said.

Delaney also spent a lot of his own money. On Oct. 31, he kicked in $250,000. That came just five days after he added $136,750. All together, Delaney lent his campaign $2.1 million. His entire campaign raised nearly $3.6 million.

Bartlett, meanwhile, raised a little more than $1.1 million. He kicked in nothing.

Steve Gottlieb, the chair of the Republican Party Central Committee, blamed redistricting for the loss. He also said Delaney had a more “gregarious” personality than Bartlett, who was “reserved” and less likely to connect with younger voters.

“It’s been a very tough race,” Gottlieb said.


Danielle Douglas contributed to this report.

Source

.

Puerto Rico governor concedes in close race

(Photo: Jerry Guillen, AP)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Gov. Luis Fortuno conceded to challenger Alejandro Garcia Padilla
Fortuno is a Republican and campaigned for Romney in Florida
Fortuno congratulated Garcia and thanked supporters at a news conference

12:21PM EST November 7. 2012 -

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico's governor is conceding defeat in a close election in the U.S. island territory.

Gov. Luis Fortuno said a few thousand outstanding ballots would not be enough to close the gap with his main challenger, Alejandro Garcia Padilla. The margin was less than 1 percent.

Fortuno congratulated Garcia and thanked his supporters at a news conference Wednesday.

Fortuno is from Puerto Rico's pro-statehood party while his rival supports maintaining the island's semi-autonomous status. Fortuno, also a Republican, had been a supporter of Mitt Romney and campaigned for him in Florida.

Source

.

Wisconsin elects openly gay U.S. senator

Tammy Baldwin, elected Tuesday as Wisconsin's first female and first openly gay U.S. senator, speaks at the 2012 Democratic National Convention at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 6, 2012. UPI/Kevin Dietsch
License photo


Published: Nov. 7, 2012 at 1:35 PM



MADISON, Wis., Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Wisconsin voters made history in electing Tammy Baldwin the first woman and the first openly gay politician to the U.S. Senate.

Baldwin, 50, an attorney and seven-term Democratic congresswoman, defeated four-term former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson in the statewide race that also put Wisconsin in President Obama's win column despite native son Rep. Paul Ryan being the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Ryan was re-elected to his U.S. House seat. Baldwin was elected to the seat of retiring four-term Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl.

Baldwin won 51 percent of the vote in a state that decisively banned gay marriage in a constitutional amendment six years ago, CNN reported.

"The people's voice was heard tonight, Wisconsin, and come January your voice will be heard in the United States Senate," Baldwin told cheering supporters in Madison. "I didn't run to make history, I ran to make a difference," she said.

She was elected to represent Wisconsin's second congressional district in 1998 and led efforts that passed hate crimes legislation and legislation to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

"For the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] person growing up in Wisconsin or anywhere across [the] country, seeing an openly gay woman who is able to rise up to become a senator in the U.S. Congress is an incredible role model," Chad Griffin, president of the gay-rights group Human Rights Commission, said in a statement.

The senate race was one of most expensive in Wisconsin history with nearly $66 million spent, $46 million of that by outside groups," the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said.

Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/07/Wisconsin-elects-openly-gay-US-senator/UPI-51971352313332/#ixzz2BZ8SUeB5

.

Post-election market falls, "fiscal cliff" looms

Related News

Wall Street gains as U.S. votes, euro steady
Tue, Nov 6 2012
Markets want clear decision from presidential vote
Tue, Nov 6 2012
Gold rises, tracks equities; U.S. election eyed
Tue, Nov 6 2012
Wall Street rises in thin trade day before election
Mon, Nov 5 2012
Wall Street flat, dollar firm day before U.S. election
Mon, Nov 5 2012

Analysis & Opinion

The biggest winner in U.S. election: Mr. Uncertainty
Delegitimization of Obama begins

Related Topics

Investing Simplified »


Related Video

Wall Street votes thumbs up
Tue, Nov 6 2012
Breakingviews: Wall St gets a thump

By Caroline Valetkevitch

NEW YORK | Wed Nov 7, 2012 12:55pm EST

(Reuters) - Stocks fell more than 2 percent on Wednesday, putting the S&P 500 on track for its biggest drop since June, as investors shifted their focus to a looming fiscal showdown in Congress after President Barack Obama's re-election.

Energy, healthcare and the banking sectors were among the hardest hit after Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney, whose policy positions favored those industries. Defense shares also plunged.

Adding to the weaker sentiment were renewed worries about economic troubles in Europe, a key market for many U.S. companies. The euro zone economy will barely grow next year but pick up in 2014, the European Commission said. The region's economy would grow only 0.1 percent in 2013 after a bigger than previously forecast contraction this year.

"Traders on the floor are thinking, before the election President Obama wasn't able to resolve the fiscal cliff so what makes you think he's going to be able to do it after the election? That's the big issue right now," said Todd Schoenberger, managing principal at the BlackBay Group in New York.

The Dow Jones industrial average .DJI was down 329.86 points, or 2.49 percent, at 12,915.82. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index .SPX was down 36.03 points, or 2.52 percent, at 1,392.36. The Nasdaq Composite Index.IXIC was down 76.72 points, or 2.55 percent, at 2,935.21. The S&P 500 also below the key 1,400 level for the first time since September 4.

Wednesday's drop is a reversal from the prior session's gains when voting was under way. Defense and energy shares were among the market leaders that day.

"The market is telling us that it was pricing in the potential for a Romney victory, based upon the rally over the past few days," said Phil Orlando, chief market strategist for equities at Federated Investors Inc of Pittsburgh.

On Wednesday, an index of defense shares .DFX was down 3.8 percent, its biggest one-day drop in a year. Shares of United Technologies (UTX.N) were down 3.5 percent at $77.14.

Washington must next focus on some $600 billion in spending cuts and tax increases due to kick in next year that could derail the economic recovery, hence the "fiscal cliff" nickname.

Among sectors, the S&P energy index dropped .GSPE more than 3 percent as investors fears companies in the sector will likely see more regulation in Obama's second term, with less access to federal lands and water.

Other decliners in the energy area included Arch Coal (ACI.N) down 13.3 percent at $7.50 and Alpha Natural Resources (ANR.N) off 12.8 percent at $8.39.

Healthcare stocks also fell, as President Obama's re-election rules out the possibility of a wholesale repeal of his healthcare reform law, but questions remain as to what parts of the domestic policy will be implemented. The S&P health care index .GSPA lost 2.5 percent.

The S&P financial index .GSPF was down 3.1 percent.

(This version of the story has been corrected to change "presidential" to "president" in fourth paragraph)

(Additional reporting by Chuck Mikolajczak; Editing by Kenneth Barry)

Source

.

After My Election I Have More Flexibility

Published on Apr 22, 2012 by SeeCaTV

At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him "space."

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but "there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.

A senior administration official tells ABC News: "this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we're about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we're going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there's an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying." (Jake Tapper).

.

Was Sandy an October Surprise or an Act of God?

Remember this CRISIS in 2008?  About 4 years ago, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain suspended his Presidential campaign to return to DC to address the Financial Crisis, and to vote on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (Too Big to Fail), Bail-Out.

Yesterday, October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy slammed into the New Jersey Coast, its 80 mph winds severely assaulted the Northeast Corridor (Washington D.C. - Boston), flooding streets and tunnels and knocking out power to several million residents.

Now it seems as if the current Presidential Election (2012) is in jeopardy.  With only 7 days until ELECTION DAY, President Obama has temporary suspended his re-election campaign to better command the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.  Last week, President Obama campaigned 48 hours non-stop (shuttling from one city to another repeatedly) and was also able to (vote for himself, of course) cast his early ballot on Thursday October 25, 2012, right before the onslaught of Hurricane Sandy.  What timing?  How opportune?

Today, the 2012 Presidential Campaign, to borrow a word from the prevailing religion in America, is in Limbo.  With New York City, the financial nerve center of the United States partially bogged down in darkness, and its mass transportation system paralyzed by floods and inoperable traffic signals;  This can only warrant a delay of the current Presidential Election, and postponement of election day which is scheduled on Novemember 6.  We thought something like this would never happen?  Some thought it was only an urban myth.  Now, there you have it! 

It's quite possible that it will happen as many feared, and it is very urban indeed.

This peculiar situation begs the question: Was this crisis manufactured or was it an act of God?  Is this what they call an October Surprise?  Or is it just an omen, a sign of the times?

Arsenio
.

Voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine

Read more

.

Hurricane injects uncertainty into presidential campaign

By Michael O'Brien, NBC News


An impending hurricane injected a new degree of uncertainty into the 2012 presidential campaign, impacting candidates' schedules and early voting opportunities just nine days before Election Day.

President Barack Obama called the storm "serious and big" following a briefing at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA), warning residents in the storm's path "to take this very seriously."

The president also canceled campaign trips to Virginia and Colorado scheduled for early this week, the last full week of campaigning this election, in order to monitor Hurricane Sandy. The storm's impending landfall was poised to add a new variable to a presidential contest that has tightened considerably in its closing days, along with scores of downballot races up and down the East Coast.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Barack Obama addresses the nation on Hurricane Sandy as the storm prepares to hit the East Coast.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney canceled planned stops in Virginia — one of the most hotly-contested battleground states this fall — on Sunday and headed to Ohio instead.

Obama spent Sunday in Washington, where he traveled to FEMA headquarters following church services early this afternoon. The administration authorized several emergency declarations for states sitting in Sandy's path, and Obama convened a conference call with administration officials and governors in the storm's path to receive an update on preparations.

The storm put some of Obama's campaigning on hold, as he canceled a northern Virginia event for that afternoon, along with an event in Colorado Springs on Tuesday. Obama was still set, though, to travel to Youngtown, Ohio on Monday morning. The president appears — for now — intent upon returning to the campaign trail on Tuesday evening in Green Bay, Wis. His campaign also advised on Sunday afternoon that two stops on Wednesday in Ohio would go forward.

The storm might have rearranged Romney's own campaign itinerary, though it's unclear whether the GOP presidential hopeful will be able to return to Virginia soon. Romney didn't address the storm in his remarks in Celine, Ohio, but his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, urged voters in the Buckeye State to keep East Coasters in their thoughts and prayers.

Nonetheless, the hurricane could prove to be the proverbial "October Surprise" of this campaign as it upended other elements of the election well before it had even made landfall.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) canceled early voting in his state for Monday, a decision other east coast governors could mirror. That could have an especially pronounced impact on a state like Virginia, a battleground state in the presidential election and home to a competitive Senate race.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, said on Sunday's TODAY show that he didn't worry about power outages or other complications from the storm diminishing voting in the state.

"It's going to be, probably, seven days from the time the storm passes 'til Election Day," he said. "We've already taken precautions to move up polling places to a higher spot for restoration. The power companies are well aware of that. So I don't think it's going to interfere with voting."

But Democrats are counting on robust turnout — both through early voting and on Nov. 6 — to propel Obama to a second term. While Sandy's projected path is uncertain, its rain and wind could discourage voters in the key swing state of Ohio from voting early, a practice employed by both campaigns to bank votes ahead of Election Day.

"Obviously we want unfettered access to the polls, because we believe that the more people come out, the better we’re going to do,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama's re-election campaign, said Sunday on CNN. “And so, to the extent that it makes it harder, that’s a source of concern.”

The president himself downplayed worries about the storm's impact on voting.

"We don't anticipate that at this point but we're obviously going to have to take a look," he said in Washington following his FEMA briefing.

Source

.

Will white men sink Obama?

By BRIAN MONTOPOLI / CBS NEWS/ October 26, 2012, 6:00 AM

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GETTYIMAGES

Listen to President Obama and Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, and you could be forgiven for briefly thinking only one gender is allowed to vote. Both candidates regularly tailor their message to female voters: You can see it in the president's attacks on Romney's desire to cut Planned Parenthood funding and potentially appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, and in Romney's claim that "this president has failed America's women" due to an uptick in female poverty.

There's a reason for this: Women are widely perceived as more likely than men to be swing voters. In the battleground state of Colorado, for example, both campaigns are open about the fact that they believe whoever makes the best case to suburban women will win the state.

Yet all the talk about women might make it easy to forget that men are a significant chunk of the electorate as well. While women outvoted men by about 10 million votes in the 2008 presidential election, men still made up 48 percent of the electorate. And white men alone made up more than one third of the electorate - 36 percent - according to national exit polls.

It's true that whites are slowly shrinking as a portion of the electorate as blacks, Hispanics and Asians grow in influence, which is why you don't see many news stories about them as a voting bloc. But they still pack a powerful electoral punch. White men, in fact, are providing the biggest drag on the president of any voting bloc as he tries to win another four years in the Oval Office. Even if the president gets his expected 80 percent support from minority voters, he is unlikely to win the election if he can't win more than one in three white men. And he might not.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released this week found that white men support Romney over Mr. Obama 65 percent to 32 percent - a 2-to-1 margin. That suggests the president is doing worse among white men then he did in 2008, when exit polls showed he lost white men by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. The poll also found white men moving away from the president: Romney's 19-point mid-October lead on handling the economy among the group has risen to 35 points today.

The 2008 numbers were actually pretty good for a Democrat, at least when it comes to recent history. Mr. Obama's share of the white male vote was the highest for a member of his party since 1976, when Jimmy Carter won almost half of white male voters. (In each of his two presidential elections, George W. Bush won white men by more than 25 points.) Yet Mr. Obama's support among white men appears to have slipped since 2008. A big loss among white men would particularly hurt the president in the Midwestern swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa.

The movement of white men away from Democrats over the past four decades, argued Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall, is tied to both the culture war and the perception of "a change in the focal point of Democratic economic policymaking."

"Many white men, and many, in particular, non-college white men, have not seen that the Democratic economic agenda is in their interest," said Marshall. "There's an account from the left that says these voters have been estranged from Democrats on social issues. And there's some truth to that. But I also think these voters believe the economic policies of Democrats have benefitted somebody else - not them. Women, minorities, interest groups. They don't feel that Democrats have championed the interests of white male voters in modern times as they did in the days of Roosevelt/Truman."

The good news - or the less bad news - for Mr. Obama is that the problem is far worse in the South than it is in the Midwestern swing states. Look specifically at the white working class, who were somewhat supportive of Bill Clinton in 1996 but have consistently broken against Democrats since that election. A survey released last month by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that Romney led 48 to 35 percent among whites lacking four-year college degrees who are paid by the hour or the job. Yet while Romney led by 40 points among southern working-class whites, the president actually led by eight points among Midwestern working-class whites. The president's relative strength among whites in the Midwest is the reason a state like Pennsylvania appears likely to remain blue despite a relatively large white population.

"The sense that he's doing better with white voters in the Midwest is the firewall for Barack Obama," Marshall said. "It's what's giving him hope that he can win in the Electoral College even if he potentially loses the popular vote."

Romney struggled in Midwestern states in the Republican primaries against Rick Santorum, and the Obama campaign's characterization of Romney as an uncaring plutocrat with little concern for the employees of the companies he bought and sold at Bain Capital may be particularly resonant there. The auto bailout also boosted the president among white working-class voters in Ohio and elsewhere in the region, and it helps the president that the region is more unionized than the rest of the nation.

"Obama has had policies that have helped the economy in the Midwest, particularly the auto bailout and the efforts to improve manufacturing," said Darrell West, vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He said that whites in the south and in rural areas, meanwhile, have "seen the downsides of the economic policies without getting very many of the benefits."

It's worth putting a point on the gender gap here: The PRRI study found that while Romney holds a 2-1 advantage among white working class men, the two candidates were tied among white-working class women. David Paul Kuhn, author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma,"reported that Democrats have seen a 25 percent decline in white working-class male support between 1948 and 2004, even as white working-class women held steady. Democrats generally perform far worse with men than women, just as they perform worse with whites than minority voters.

The economic downturn may only have exacerbated the president's white male problem. The effect of the 2008 economic collapse has been dubbed a "he-cession" because it disproportionately left men out of work. "White men have suffered disproportionately from the recession, and it's been hard for them to make up for the lost wages," said West. "It's been a real challenge for Obama to convince those people they would do better in a second term."

The Obama campaign says its overall economic message resonates with all middle-class voters, including white men.

"Middle-class Americans, regardless of age, gender or race, have a clear choice in this election," said Deputy National Press Secretary Adam Fetcher. "President Obama is working to tell every American about his concrete, detailed plan to move America forward, get folks back to work and strengthen the middle class." Fetcher went on to attack Romney as "outsourcer-in-chief at Bain Capital."

The Romney campaign, meanwhile, is trying to win over white men with its argument that the president has been a poor steward of the economy. It has also targeted white working-class men in the Midwest by arguing that the president has engaged in a "war on coal," a message that is particularly resonant in southeastern Ohio.

The silver lining in all this for Democrats: The impact of their disadvantage among white men looks likely to diminish as time goes on.

"Democrats have a demographic problem with white men, but that portion of the electorate is shrinking. So it will become less of a problem in future presidential elections," said West. "The problem is for Democrats to get through this election. Their long-term strategy actually looks good."


Source

.

After Final Debate Done, Candidates Start Swing State Sprint

Published on Oct 23, 2012 by PBSNewsHour

The candidates made an eager return to the campaign trail the day after their final presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla. Gwen Ifill recaps debate highlights and looks at new ads. Judy Woodruff gets post-debate analysis from Nicholas Burns, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, and Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations.

.

Musical chairs, changing sides

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama shared a few laughs — yes, really — at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City on Thursday night. They sat with Cardinal Edward M. Egan, head of the Archdiocese of New York. (Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/mccain-and-obama-palling-around-must-be-the-al-smith-dinner/

Obama on the right!

U.S. President Obama, Cardinal Timothy Dolan center, Archbishop of New York, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attend the 67th annual Al Smith dinner at the Waldorf Astoria hotel Thursday in New York. / Getty Images (via USA Today)

http://www.freep.com/article/20121019/NEWS15/121019013/Obama-Romney-lighten-up-after-debate-during-Alfred-E-Smith-Memorial-Foundation-Dinner

Obama on left (or right of  Dolan).

.

.

Bringing the Foreign Policy Debate Home

First Take

Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
October 23, 2012

A good deal can and will be said about Monday night's foreign policy debate, but the bottom line may be that it was not so much about foreign policy and not so much a debate.

Both candidates had a lot to say about "domestic" concerns: education, deficits, infrastructure, energy, and economic competitiveness. To many watching the debate, it might have seemed to have gone off course. But the emphasis on these stateside concerns served to underscore an important point: the United States can only be as strong abroad as it is at home. American influence in the world depends on the ability to act with real capacity and set an example that others will want to follow. This all takes resources.

There was also a surprising degree of agreement between the two candidates: the wisdom of pushing Hosni Mubarak out of the president's office as the protesters gathered in Tahrir Square; the need to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons; concern for Pakistan's future stability; the utility of drone strikes as a tool of counter-terrorism; the desirability of challenging China on areas of disagreement in a way that did not rule out selective cooperation; and the importance of helping the Syrian opposition by doing all that was possible to see that any weapons supplied did not end up in the "wrong," i.e. radical, hands.

There were as well some obvious omissions: the lack of debate over Libya and the neglect of Mexico, the eurozone, Africa, the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and climate change. The only thing sure is that whoever wins the election in two weeks will not have the luxury of avoiding these issues or the hard choices associated with the others, domestic and foreign alike.

Source

.

A FEW Hours before the DEBATE -

Clinton takes Obama off Libya hook

USA TODAY - ‎39 minutes ago

David Jackson. David Jackson has been a reporter for more than three decades, and now covers the White House for USA TODAY. He enjoys politics, books, movies, and college football -- not necessarily in that order.

Rice denies cherry-picking Benghazi intelligencePolitico

Hillary Clinton shoulders blame for Libya consulate securityChristian Science Monitor

Highly Cited:Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' securityCNN (blog)

Opinion:Benghazi as a political footballLos Angeles Times

In Depth:How the Clintons are doing some heavy lifting for ObamaWashington Post (blog)

Wikipedia:Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi

Related Libya »Benghazi »Joe Biden »