Sunday Open Thread

Good Morning. I hope you’re enjoying this weekend with family and friends.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Sunday Open Thread

  1. rikyrah says:

    The Rape and personhood issue- The Real Issue(5+ / 0-)

    I think everyone is missing the point on this debate. This is not a debate about rape. The Republicans want to do away with Roe v. Wade. However under the current makeup of the Court they could probably not get Kennedy and his more libertarian view to go very far on that. It also takes a major Judicial undoing of landmark decisions to reverse that issue. None of the conservatives on the Court believe that privacy is an issue that can be carved out of the Constitution.

    Further going directly after Roe v Wade is too polarizing as an affront to women and would be hard to defend to the more moderate elements of the country. They want to go ofter something that is far less given to the dogfights of talk radio and cable news and that is Griswold. If you do not know the case go refresh yourself and even a Harvard law graduate, Romney. said in a debate in the primary that he could not imagine a state wanting to ban contraception. Well he just did not know the landmark case of Griswold v. Conn.

    This whole person-hood issue has already been addressed by the court on the exact point and I post it below. They want this issue brought to the court to overturn Griswold and then District Courts can start to attack Roe v Wade and if the Republicans win the White House and put only one more conservative member on the court then they have their way to do all of this.

    410 U.S. 179
    Doe v. Bolton
    No. 70-40 Argued: December 13, 1971 — Decided: January 22, 1973
    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring [*]
    While I join the opinion of the Court, [n1]
    I add a few words.
    The questions presented in the present cases go far beyond the issues of vagueness, which we considered in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62
    . They involve the right of privacy, one aspect of which we considered in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
    , 484, when we held that various guarantees in the Bill of Rights create zones of privacy. [n2]
    The Griswold case involved a law forbidding the use of contraceptives. We held that law as applied to married people unconstitutional:
    We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.
    Id. at 486.
    The District Court in Doe held that Griswold and related cases
    establish a Constitutional right to privacy broad enough to encompass the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in its early stages, by obtaining an abortion.
    319 F.Supp. 1048, 1054.
    The Supreme Court of California expressed the same view in People v. Belous, [n3]
    71 Cal.2d 954, 963, 4&8 P.2d 194, 199.
    The Ninth Amendment
    obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of “the Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come [p211] within the meaning of the term “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment
    First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one’s intellect, interests, tastes, and personality.
    These are rights protected by the First Amendment
    and, in my view, they are absolute, permitting of no exceptions. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. l; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476
    , 508 (dissent); Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684
    , 697 (concurring); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
    , 293 (Black, J., concurring, in which I joined). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
    is one facet of this constitutional right. The right to remain silent as respects one’s own beliefs, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178
    , 196-199, is protected by the First and the Fifth. The First Amendment
    grants the privacy of first-class mail, United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249
    , 253. All of these aspects of the right of privacy are rights “retained by the people” in the meaning of the Ninth Amendment
    Second is freedom of choice in the basic decisions of one’s life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the education and upbringing of children.
    These rights, unlike those protected by the First Amendment
    , are subject to some control by the police power. Thus, the Fourth Amendment
    speaks only of “unreasonable searches and seizures” and of “probable cause.” These rights are “fundamental,” and we have held that, in order to support legislative action, the statute must be narrowly and precisely drawn, and that a “compelling state interest” must be shown in support of the limitation. E.g., Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621
    ; Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
    ; [p212] Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89
    ; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398
    ; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449
    The liberty to marry a person of one’ own choosing, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
    ; the right of procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535
    ; the liberty to direct the education of one’s children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510
    , and the privacy of the marital relation, Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, are in this category. [n4]
    [p213] Only last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438
    , another contraceptive case, we expanded the concept of Griswold by saying:
    It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
    Id. at 453.
    This right of privacy was called by Mr. Justice Brandeis the right “to be let alone.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438
    , 478 (dissenting opinion). That right includes the privilege of an individual to plan his own affairs, for,
    “outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.”
    Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116
    , 126.
    Third is the freedom to care for one’s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf.
    These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of “compelling state interest.” We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156
    , 164, that walking, strolling, and wandering “are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them.” As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11
    , 29:
    There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will [p214] and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will.
    In Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250
    , 252, the Court said, “The inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow.”
    In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
    , 8-9, the Court, in speaking of the Fourth Amendment
    This inestimable right of personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs.
    Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
    , 350, emphasizes that the Fourth Amendment
    “protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion.”
    In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390
    , 399, the Court said:
    Without doubt, [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
    The Georgia statute is at war with the clear message of these cases — that a woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child. Elaborate argument is hardly necessary to demonstrate that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future. For example, rejected applicants under the Georgia statute are required to endure the [p215] discomforts of pregnancy; to incur the pain, higher mortality rate, and after-effects of childbirth; to abandon educational plans; to sustain loss of income; to forgo the satisfactions of careers; to tax further mental and physical health in providing child care; and, in some cases, to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood, a badge which may haunt, if not deter, later legitimate family relationships.
    Such reasoning is, however, only the beginning of the problem. The State has interests to protect. Vaccinations to prevent epidemics are one example, as Jacobson, supra, holds. The Court held that compulsory sterilization of imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility is another. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200
    . Abortion affects another. While childbirth endangers the lives of some women, voluntary abortion at any time and place regardless of medical standards would impinge on a rightful concern of society. The woman’s health is part of that concern; as is the life of the fetus after quickening. These concerns justify the State in treating the procedure as a medical one.
    One difficulty is that this statute as construed, and applied apparently does not give full sweep to the “psychological, as well as physical wellbeing” of women patients which saved the concept “health” from being void for vagueness in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 72. But, apart from that, Georgia’s enactment has a constitutional infirmity because, as stated by the District Court, it “limits the number of reasons for which an abortion may be sought.” I agree with the holding of the District Court, “This the State may not do, because such action unduly restricts a decision sheltered by the Constitutional right to privacy.” 319 F.Supp. at 1056.
    The vicissitudes of life produce pregnancies which may be unwanted, or which may impair “health” in [p216] the broad Vuitch sense of the term, or which may imperil the life of the mother, or which, in the full setting of the case, may create such suffering, dislocations, misery, or tragedy as to make an early abortion the only civilized step to take. These hardships may be properly embraced in the “health” factor of the mother as appraised by a person of insight. Or they may be part of a broader medical judgment based on what is “appropriate” in a given case, though perhaps not “necessary” in a strict sense.
    The “liberty” of the mother, though rooted as it is in the Constitution, may be qualified by the State for the reasons we have stated. But where fundamental personal rights and liberties are involved, the corrective legislation must be “narrowly drawn to prevent the supposed evil,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296
    , 307, and not be dealt with in an “unlimited and indiscriminate” manner. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479
    , 490. And see Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60
    . Unless regulatory measures are so confined and are addressed to the specific areas of compelling legislative concern, the police power would become the great leveler of constitutional rights and liberties.
    There is no doubt that the State may require abortions to be performed by qualified medical personnel. The legitimate objective of preserving the mother’s health clearly supports such laws. Their impact upon the woman’s privacy is minimal. But the Georgia statute outlaws virtually all such operations — even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. In light of modern medical evidence suggesting that an early abortion is safer healthwise than childbirth itself, [n5]
    it cannot be seriously [p217] urged that so comprehensive a ban is aimed at protecting the woman’s health. Rather, this expansive proscription of all abortions along the temporal spectrum can rest only on a public goal of preserving both embryonic and fetal life.
    The present statute has struck the balance between the woman’s and the State’s interests wholly in favor of the latter. I am not prepared to hold that a State may equate, as Georgia has done, all phases of maturation preceding birth. We held in Griswold that the States may not preclude spouses from attempting to avoid the joinder of sperm and egg. If this is true, it is difficult to perceive any overriding public necessity which might attach precisely at the moment of conception. As Mr. Justice Clark has said: [n6]
    To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity — the known, rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon of [p218] life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be homicide, and as we have seen, society does not regard it as such. The rites of Baptism are not performed and death certificates are not required when a miscarriage occurs. No prosecutor has ever returned a murder indictment charging the taking of the life of a fetus. [n7]
    This would not be the case if the fetus constituted human life.
    In summary, the enactment is overbroad. It is not closely correlated to the aim of preserving prenatal life. In fact, it permits its destruction in several cases, including pregnancies resulting from sex acts in which unmarried females are below the statutory age of consent. At the same time, however, the measure broadly proscribes aborting other pregnancies which may cause severe mental disorders. Additionally, the statute is overbroad because it equates the value of embryonic life immediately after conception with the worth of life immediately before birth.

    by winejazzman on Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 08:47:41 AM PDT

  2. rikyrah says:

    First Person: Hungry in America

    Missing Meals in the Land of Plenty

    Cheryl E Preston, Yahoo! Contributor Network
    Aug 22, 2012

    More than 18 percent of Americans say there have been times this year they couldn’t afford the food they needed, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday. Yahoo! asked readers: How are you dealing with rising food costs and the possibility of going hungry? Here’s one perspective.

    My name is Cheryl Preston. I am 54 and live in Roanoke, Va. I am the mother of three kids and the grandmother of three kids. For decades, my husband and I had enough money for bills and necessities. This is no longer true.

    During the last three years, a number of things have worked against us:

    – My monthly income was cut by $500 monthly, and I have not been able to replace it.

    – My husband’s job does not always guarantee 40 hours a week. He worked a second job, but it only lasted through the Christmas season.

    – Rising gas prices cause everything else to be more expensive. A gallon costs upward of $3.65 in Roanoke.

    When you get a check for $250, and your basic needs require at least $400, you are already defeated. You can only cut back so much and then you have no choice but to do without. I long for the days when I could pay my bills on time, buy more than enough groceries and have money left over.

    There are days I have skipped meals so my husband and son will not. If they notice, I let them think I am fasting. I also water down my juice and milk so that it lasts longer.

    I utilize food pantries, but it is not enough. We’ve had to ration our meals. On more than a few occasions, we were extremely low on food for five or six days until pay day. And, many times, by the end of the night, the amount of food we have consumed during the entirety of the day is what we used to eat in one meal.

    I know others are worse off, but this is still stressful. It hurts to be in the grocery store and know that your money will not purchase enough to last until the next pay day. It is distressing to miss family gatherings at restaurants because we don’t have the money to pay for our meal.

    Who would think that in the land of plenty, hard-working families would go hungry? But I am living proof it is true.

  3. Ametia says:

    VIDEO | Andrea Saul, Mitt Romney’s Press Secretary Says If Only Fired Employee Joe Soptic Had ‘Romneycare’

    See where Romney’s going with this? TRYING TO TACK TO THE MIDDLE.


  4. rikyrah says:

    Davis represented, and poorly, his district. He spent years voting against the best interests of his constituents…the crystallization was his TWO votes against the ACA. In a poor district with a very large percentage of uninsure people….along with those who were the multitudes that have pre-existing conditions that would be helped….

    he CHOSE to vote against his constituents, and disrespect the First Black President who they saw as trying to help them…

    And then thought his constituents should just roll over and accept what he did. then, all of Artur’s NON-representation got rolled up in his ACA vote and they responded accordingly during his Governor’s run.

    We all know the attacks of Corny and Travesty against this President.

    Corey Booker?

    He was sitting on national television, as an official representative of the Obama Campaign, and chose to stab the President of the United States in the back, undermining a very important campaign message…and thought there should be no blowback to him?

    no, I don’t think so.


    Will The Real Artur Davis Please Stand Up
    By Charles D. Ellison

    It was just under a year ago when I had the opportunity to interview former Congressman Artur Davis in what was described at the time as a “candid” one-on-one about his political past, present and future. It was December 2011, and the once rising star Alabama gubernatorial candidate was flowing a bit hot over grapevine whispers about a planned party switch.


    What a difference eight months can make. Somewhere along the line, Davis got the deal he wanted or felt comfortable enough to go public with his new age Black Republicanism. However, this is by no means a “sell out” move. Nor is Davis staging a one-man “Uncle Tom” show as many a stale Black commentator has suggested in recent days. This is, instead, a very shrewd (if clumsy attempt) at political revenge and relevance.

    Davis, frantically scraping for limelight under the shadow of his very outdated high top fade haircut, must feed the lurking fire in his belly. If anything, his demise in Alabama politics and present rise among Republican rank-and-file is a cautionary tale of what happens to Black politicos who spurn the first Black president. They are relegated to the fringes – see Tavis Smiley and Cornel West for more reference. Or, they find themselves begging for crumbs of forgiveness – see Newark Mayor Corey Booker.

    Davis didn’t want to go out like that, despite the lingering sting of his embarrassing 2010 Democratic primary loss to Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks. That’s what this is really about. He was supposed to be Alabama’s first Black governor, actively styling his campaign after President Barack Obama’s historic 2008 win. In a state nearly 30% African American, Davis expected an easy path to the nomination. Instead, he ended up with an embarrassing 62% to 38% loss to Sparks as Alabama’s Black political machine put their chips on the White guy, refusing to forgive Davis for his vote against a popular Obama health care reform bill and fed up with the Congressman’s contrarian center-right positions. The former 2008 Obama campaign co-chair didn’t even get support from his hero president, and the Congressional Black Caucus, usually known for backing its members, barely made an effort for Davis. As quickly as Sparks rocked him, Davis fell hard and fast into an open coffin laying only yards behind him in the political graveyard.

    • rikyrah says:

      this is another part of the Ellison article:

      The problem today is that Davis never forgave Black Alabama for that, much less Black people and Black politicians in general. It was similar to the resentment former Republican Party chair Michael Steele felt when he lost his 2006 U.S. Senate bid in Maryland, only garnering 25% of the vote in the critical majority Black enclave of Prince George’s County: his home. Like Steele in Maryland, Davis put Alabama way behind in his rearview mirror, going so far as to physically relocate to Virginia.

      I call bogus on this too.

      When folks bring up Michael Steele’s race, I always come back with this..


      not a one.

      Steele received 2 and a half times the usual Black vote that a Republican receives and he didn’t win?


      I just don’t buy that it’s Black folks’ fault. Show me the proof that a Republican winning 25% of the Black vote in the modern era (1980- present) doesn’t win their election?

      • Ametia says:

        White folks vote for white Pols ; just as black folks vote for black pols.

        The difference is, black folks will not vote for BLACK POLS WHO DO NOT REPRESENT THEIR FINANCIAL, SPIRITUAL, OR EMOTIONAL WELL BEING.


        And when it comes to 44 POTUS, I do beleive Black folks voted in the prior elections to ELECT the past 43 WHITE POTUS.

  5. rikyrah says:

    Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 06:00 AM PDT.

    Why it’s so important for rape to be ‘legitimate’+*

    by Dante Atkins


    172 Comments / 172 New

    attribution: Todd Akin YouTube channel

    Todd Akin (R-MO): Legitimately creepy
    Unless you’ve been spending the past week or so living under a rock—and given the political climate these days, it would be hard to blame you for doing so—you can’t have missed the fact that Republican Congressman and newly minted Senate nominee from Missouri, Todd Akin, went on a St. Louis television station and proceeded to stick his foot so far down his mouth that his toes tingled his duodenum.
    Akin’s comments, which have led panicked Republicans to call for him to drop out of the race lest his misogynist toxicity metastasize to infect the Romney/Ryan ticket and Republicans across the nation, centered around two atrocities: first, the absurd idea that female reproductive anatomy can shut down in response to rape and somehow prevent conception; and second, the use of the term “legitimate rape” to describe the circumstances under which a woman’s magic ovaries would somehow initiate the aforementioned shutdown of reproductive capacity. Taken together, the comments as a whole were designed to justify Akin’s opposition to any exemptions for abortion, even in cases of rape or incest: After all, per Akin’s logic, if a woman gets raped, she won’t get pregnant; so if she’s pregnant, well, no exemption is required.

    The biological aspect of Akin’s comments seems to have drawn more scorn and outright mockery: After all, how can someone pretend to take a leading role in legislating women’s bodies without even knowing the basics of how they work? The comments about “legitimate rape,” however, were a different story, as seemingly every Democratic candidate and committee in existence sent an email to their lists seeking to raise money and respond to Akin’s outrageous implication that some rapes are okay.

    (Continue reading below the fold.)

    Is that what Akin meant, though? Not really. By using the word “legitimate,” Akin sought to distinguish between circumstances he considers an actual rape, as opposed to other circumstances that he doesn’t consider rape at all. The originally intended language of the so-called No Taxpayer Funding For Abortions Act, considered early last year by the House, makes perfectly clear what that distinction is with its abandoned efforts to redefine rape to only include those deemed “forcible”:

    With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

    Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes.

    • Ametia says:


      Let’s shorten this:


  6. Ametia says:

    Romney’s RACISM : In the GUTTER with Gingrich

    The sixteenth anniversary of TANF hit this week, and the Republican presidential candidate spent his time lying about the president’s position on it. President Obama, Mitt Romney insists, stripped the work requirements out of the temporary assistance program that replaced welfare for poor families under Bill Clinton in 1996.

    Although every fact-check has shown he’s wrong, Romney and the Romney-phile propaganda groups keep pounding away at their message with ads like this one:

    Unidentified male: “Under Obama’s plan you wouldn’t have to work and you wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”

  7. Ametia says:


  8. rikyrah says:

    Poll: Obama Opens Big Lead Over Romney On Women’s Issues
    Pema Levy – 10:15 AM EDT, Sunday August 26, 2012

    Voters see President Obama as far more in touch with the problems women face, a new poll from CNN finds. On who is more in touch with women voters, Obama leads Romney 60 percent to 30 percent among likely voters. Among registered voters, Obama leads 62 percent to 27 percent.

    As Romney heads to the Republican National Convention, the poll shows Obama leading when it comes to personal characteristics and relating to voters. On who is more “in touch with the problems facing middle class Americans,” Obama leads 53 percent to 39 percent among likely voters and 58 percent to 33 percent among registered voters. Obama also leads on the question of who cares about “the needs of people like you” by 13 points among likely voters and 20 points among registered voters.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Romney Touts Romneycare: I’m The Guy That Got ‘Health Care For All The Women And Men In My State’

    By Zack Ford on Aug 26, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Just two weeks after a Romney spokesperson faced a barrage of conservative criticism for highlighting the success of the governor’s Massachusetts health care law, Romney himself bragged that the measure has expanded access to women’s health care services, including contraception. During an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Romney said he was “very proud” of Romneycare — which includes an individual mandate — for providing coverage to all women and men:

    ROMNEY: With regards to women’s health care, look, I’m the guy that was about to get health care for all of the women and men in my state. They’re talking about it on the federal level, we actually did something. […]

    CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): So you’re saying, look at Romneycare?

    ROMNEY: Well, absolutely. I am very proud of what we did, and the fact that we helped women and men and children in our state… And then with regard to contraceptives, of course Republicans, myself in particular, recognize that women have a right to use contraceptives. There is absolutely no validity whatsoever to the Obama effort to try and bring that up.

    Indeed, almost all Massachusetts residents have complied with the law’s requirement to purchase health care coverage and women in the sate are now receiving a wide array of benefits, including family planning services.

    But Romney would significantly reduce access to health care if he’s elected president. He has pledged to repeal Obamacare, characterized the law’s provision to expand coverage for contraception as an attack against religion, and has suggested that women should “vote for the other guy” if they expect improved access to birth control.

    In the Fox interview, Romney also reiterated his desire to defund Planned Parenthood, arguing that taxpayer dollars should not fund abortion. Abortion constitutes only 3 percent of the organization’s services and it’s covered by private funds.

  10. rikyrah says:

    Romney Adopts Harder Message for Last Stretch


    Published: August 25, 2012

    Mitt Romney is heading into his nominating convention with his advisers convinced he needs a more combative footing against President Obama in order to appeal to white, working-class voters and to persuade them that he is the best answer to their economic frustrations.

    Having survived a summer of attacks but still trailing the president narrowly in most national polls, Mr. Romney’s campaign remains focused intently on the economy as the issue that can defeat Mr. Obama. But in a marked change, Mr. Romney has added a harder edge to a message that for most of this year was focused on his business and job-creation credentials, injecting volatile cultural themes into the race


    The battleground map has remained remarkably stable in recent months, which leaves Mr. Obama with more paths to winning 270 electoral votes and places a burden on Mr. Romney to break through in states where he so far has not. But Republicans suddenly see encouraging signs in Wisconsin after the selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as his running mate. Mr. Romney’s chances hinge to a large degree on running up his advantage among white voters in swing states who show deep strains of opposition to Mr. Obama but do not yet trust Mr. Romney to look out for their interests, Republican strategists say.

    Many of those voters are economically disaffected, and the Romney campaign has been trying to reach them with appeals built around an assertion that Mr. Obama is making it easier for welfare recipients to avoid work. The Romney campaign is airing an advertisement falsely charging that Mr. Obama has “quietly announced” plans to eliminate work and job training requirements for welfare beneficiaries, a message Mr. Romney’s aides said resonates with working-class voters who see government as doing nothing for them.

    The moves reflect a campaign infused with a sharper edge and overtones of class and race. On Friday, Mr. Romney said at a rally that no one had ever had to ask him about his birth certificate, and Mr. Ryan invoked his Catholicism and love of hunting. Democrats angrily said Mr. Romney’s remark associated him with the fringe “birther” camp seeking falsely to portray Mr. Obama as not American.

  11. rikyrah says:

    Romney: Not going to ‘manipulate my life’ by closing Swiss bank account

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney insists that he didn’t shut down his tax shelters in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Switzerland because it would “avoid the truth” and he wasn’t going to “manipulate my life” just to become president.

    Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Romney in an interview that aired on Sunday why he didn’t close the Swiss bank accounts and get out of the investments in the Cayman Islands before he spent the last eight years running for president.

    “First of all, there was no reduction — not one dollar reduction — in taxes by virtue of having an account in Switzerland or a Cayman Islands investment,” Romney explained. “The dollars of taxes remained exactly the same. There was no tax savings at all. And the conduct of the trustee and making investments was entirely consistent with U.S. law and all the taxes paid were those legally owed and there was no tax saving by virtue of those entities.”

    “But why not just go to him a long time ago and just say, get out of these things?” Wallace pressed.

  12. rikyrah says:

    Media Alert reminder:

    Gabby Douglas on Oprah tonight at 8:30 pm EST

  13. Ametia says:


    Former Gov. Charlie Crist: Here’s why I’m backing Barack Obama

    By Charlie Crist, Special to the Times
    Sunday, August 26, 2012

    I’ve studied, admired and gotten to know a lot of leaders in my life. Across Florida, in Washington and around the country, I’ve watched the failure of those who favor extreme rhetoric over sensible compromise, and I’ve seen how those who never lose sight of solutions sow the greatest successes.

    As America prepares to pick our president for the next four years — and as Florida prepares once again to play a decisive role — I’m confident that President Barack Obama is the right leader for our state and the nation. I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history.


    Worth a click to the site; you won’t regret it.

  14. Ametia says:

    MHP had ROBERT TRAYNHAM on her show this morning whose story was acted out in this clip.

    The Newsroom: Santorum on Gay Rights

  15. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone:)

Leave a Reply