Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey
- Barack Obama 43% [43%] (42%) {44%} [40%] (43%) {46%} [42%] {45%} [42%] (44%)
- Mitt Romney 42% [41%] (44%) {41%} [43%] (39%) {38%} [43%] {40%} [44%] (44%)
Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted October 16-17, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 28-29, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 10-11, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-26, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the polls conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the polls conducted between July 14-15, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 3-4, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Obama and Romney run virtually even among both male and female voters. Voters under 40 prefer the president, while older voters give the nod to the Republican.
Romney earns the support of 77% of GOP voters, while 80% of Democrats back the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major parties give Romney a very slight 40% to 38% edge.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of union members favor Obama. Eighty-six percent (86%) of voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement support Romney.
-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
Alexis Levinson has the story over at The Daily Caller:
New Hampshire Republicans are pressuring Mitt Romney to join the boycott of Nevada’s caucuses in deference to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary status, WMUR reports.
Romney, who is the front-runner in both states, has thus far declined to join the boycott.
Last week, Romney spokesperson Ryan Williams told The Daily Caller that “Governor Romney is committed to preserving New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary and the critical role it plays in selecting our Republican nominee,” but that “Governor Romney is also competing in every other nominating contest across the country — whenever they are scheduled.”
WMUR reports that several prominent New Hampshire Republicans, including some Romney supporters, have called for the former Massachusetts governor to join the boycott. Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have already pledged to do so.
“I think he may be taking New Hampshire voters for granted, and I don’t think he ought to do that,” Bill O’Brien, New Hampshire House Speaker, told WMUR.
Several other Republicans joined the call, including House Majority Leader DJ Bettencourt, who supports Romney, and Ted Gatsas, Mayor of Manchester.
“I would hope all the candidates that are here would ignore the Nevada primary, including that debate that’s tomorrow,” Gatsas said.
O’Brien expressed concern that Romney was taking his perceived status as the front-runner in the state for granted.
“I talk to voters who are very, very concerned about New Hampshire maintaining its primary,” he told WMUR. “They wouldn’t take very kindly to a front-runner who says, ‘No, I’ve got you locked up, so I’m going to try and get an advantage in another state.’”
It has been suggested that Romney, who opened his Nevada campaign headquarters Monday, lobbied for Nevada to move its caucuses so that he could use a win there to build momentum coming out of New Hampshire and heading into South Carolina and Florida.
Be sure to read the entire piece here.
From the official release:
Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today announced the support of 15 New Hampshire State Representatives. With today’s endorsements, a total of 35 State Representatives have declared their support for Governor Romney.
“I am proud to have the support of these fiscally responsible New Hampshire state legislators,” said Mitt Romney. “With their help, I look forward to defeating President Obama and getting Americans back to work.”
“Governor Romney has the executive experience and the fiscally conservative values needed to create jobs and turn around our economy. He is a proven leader who can bring people together to confront the enormous challenges facing our county,” said Assistant Majority Leader David Hess (R-Hooksett). “In 2012, Republicans must nominate a candidate who is capable of undoing the damage caused by President Obama’s failed economic policies. That leader is Mitt Romney.”
State Representatives Endorsing Mitt Romney:
State Representative David Hess (R-Hooksett)
State Representative Mary Allen (R-Newton)
State Representative Beverly Ferrante (R-Derry)
State Representative Norma Champagne (R-Manchester)
State Representative Russell Day (R-Goffstown)
State Representative Kathleen Hoelzel (R-Raymond)
State Representative Phyllis Katsakiores (R-Derry)
State Representative Frank Holden (R-Lyndeborough)
State Representative Charles McMahon (R-Windham)
State Representative Joseph Krasucki (R-Nashua)
State Representative Michael Reed (R-Nashua)
State Representative John Sytek (R-Manchester)
State Representative James Webb (R-Derry)
State Representative Ross Terio (R-Manchester)
State Representative Chris Ahlgren (R-Wolfeboro)
Race 4 2012′s CNN/Western Republican Leadership Conference debate Open thread will go live at 7:30pm EST. You can watch the debate on cable/satellite on CNN or online here.
Herman Cain was in second place in this Presidential contest once before, during the early summer. The first Cain bubble didn’t last long, however, largely because Cain’s inexperience shone through in several interviews.
Back then, Cain famously made headlines by declaring he would not allow Muslims to serve in his government because of fears of Sharia law. He admitted multiple times that not only did he not have a plan for Afghanistan, he said he would and could not make one until he was elected President. And he admitted he didn’t know what “right of return” meant in reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Herman Cain sunk back into the muddled lower tiers of candidates. But now that he is enjoying a resurgence and is back in second (or first) place, some of his controversial statements are back in the spotlight as well.
The first one this time around was Cain’s headline-producing pronouncement that “If you don’t have a job, if you’re not rich, blame yourself!” Then on Saturday, Cain proposed an interesting solution to the illegal immigration problem the U.S. faces: don’t just build a fence, but build a 20-foot high fence with barbed wire on top — and make it an electric fence. One so powerful it could kill anyone who touched it.
Cain seemed to sense that this comment may have been slightly over the line, so he explained further for those who thought this plan might be insensitive: “It’s insensitive for them to be killing our citizens, killing our border agents,” he said. “That’s what’s insensitive.”
Of course, the topic came up on the Sunday morning interviews Cain was doing the next day, and he walked back his comments by claiming the whole thing was just a joke.
Later on in the interview, Cain was asked if Iran’s attempt to assassinate one of our ambassadors was an act of war. His response was eerily similar to his position on the war in Afghanistan: he said he didn’t know, but would be able to decide whether or not it was after he was President.
Wrapping up a hat trick of gaffes over the weekend was Cain’s admittance that he was “not familiar with the neoconservative movement.”
It is abundantly clear that Cain is not ready for primetime politics in a national campaign like this. Rhetoric such as his comments on the border fence may play well to a WorldNetDaily or talk radio audience, but they aren’t the words of a serious Presidential candidate. Folks, there’s a reason Cain can’t break into double digits on the Intrade boards, despite leading or being tied with Romney in all the polls. Investors see moments like these and take the position that Cain will deflate once again under the weight of his own inexperience.
That inexperience might cost him not only because of verbal gaffes but also because of scheduling mistakes as well. Questions of how committed he is to actually campaigning in the early states still dog the campaign. After it was noted that he hadn’t been to Iowa since the Ames Straw Poll — and wasn’t planning on returning until mid-November — his campaign made a schedule update that sent Cain to Iowa this Saturday for a Faith and Freedom forum (which is being attended by other candidates as well). He still has no individual events planned in the state, however, and the rest of his schedule still baffles the pundits as well.
For instance, eyebrows were raised when Cain’s campaign announced today that he would be traveling to Arkansas next week. Adding to that in the next couple weeks are events in Indiana, Illinois, Texas, and Alabama. There are zero events scheduled for New Hamsphire, Nevada, South Carolina, or Florida on Cain’s calendar during that time (and nothing for Iowa outside that forum appearance).
Of course, not showing up in the early states seems to be working for Cain so far: he’s ahead in Iowa and has a comfortably large lead in South Carolina. Maybe running this “nontraditional campaign” of his will end up working, because he and his story connect so powerfully with the voters who will be driving this primary election. But I have a feeling that if Cain continues making unforced verbal errors and continues ignoring the early states, he may witness those leads dissipate.
Via the Los Angeles Times:
Iowa Republicans have set Jan. 3 as the date for their presidential caucuses, leaving New Hampshire as the only early-voting state without a firm date for its nominating contest.
The Iowa Republican Party had said it would wait for the Granite State to set its first-in-the-nation primary date before determining when to hold the precinct caucuses. But with the quadrennial round of jockeying among states, and New Hampshire’s secretary of state considering a December primary, the party acted unilaterally.
“A Jan. 3 date provides certainty to the voters, to our presidential candidates, and to the thousands of statewide volunteers who make the caucus process a reflection of the very best of our representative democracy,” state Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn said in a statement.
Be sure to read the rest here.
Lots of Herman Cain news out today, outside of the poll result.
This was from a performance at the Omaha Press Club 20 years ago and posted by the Omaha World Herald 
To quote a commenter at Hot Air, “That is a fat slice of Awesome, with Awesome Dipping Sauce.”
The Perry campaign announced Perry’s “Colorado Leadership Team” this afternoon, and it includes U.S. Representative Mike Coffman along with two state representatives.
“I am proud to have Mike, Larry and Amy heading up our efforts in this important state,” said Gov. Perry. “I look forward to bringing my vision to get America working again to Colorado with the help of this outstanding team.”
“Gov. Perry’s experience, ideas and proven record of job creation make him the candidate we need to get our nation working again,” said Rep. Coffman. “I am looking forward to being a part of Gov. Perry’s campaign team.”
Congressman Coffman serves the 6th district of Colorado and sits on the U.S. House Small Business, Armed Services and Natural Resources committees. He previously served in the Colorado General Assembly as secretary of state and state treasurer.
Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey
- Herman Cain 43% [39%] (34%) {35%} [25%]
- Barack Obama 41% [42%] (39%) {42%} [43%]
Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted October 14-15, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 6-7, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 23-24, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 26-27, 2011 are in square brackets.
Inside the numbers:
Cain leads modestly among men but trails slightly among women.
Obama leads among those under 40, while Cain has the edge among those over 40. The GOP hopeful leads by 16 points among those over 65.
Cain attracts only 72% of the Republican vote, while the president earns 82% support from voters in his party. However, Cain leads by 19 among those not affiliated with either major party.
-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
Continuing the rollout of Congressional endorsements, Romney’s campaign announced the support of the following U.S. Representatives:
These six bring Romney’s total number of Congressional supporters to 31 with many more expected — well ahead of Perry with 11. Cain still has zero endorsements as tracked by Race42012′s endorsement chart.
CNN/ORC 2012 GOP Nomination Poll
- Mitt Romney 26%
- Herman Cain 25%
- Rick Perry 13%
- Ron Paul 9%
- Newt Gingrich 8%
- Michele Bachmann 6%
- Rick Santorum 2%
- Jon Huntsman 1%
- Someone else (vol.) 1%
- None/No one (vol.) 5%
- No opinion 4%
InsiderAdvantage/Iowa Caucus Poll
- Herman Cain 26%
- Mitt Romney 18%
- Newt Gingrich 12%
- Michele Bachmann 11%
- Ron Paul 10%
- Rick Perry 6%
- Jon Huntsman 1%
- Someone else 3%
- Undecided 13%
Conducted Oct. 16 among 422 likely voters, for a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent. Data have been weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation.
Inside the numbers:
Analysis by InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery: “ “This isn’t a surprise, given that Iowa is conservative and Cain has worked the state hard. While he is tied with Romney with women, Cain leads substantially among men. He also does better among younger voters.
“The other point of interest is that the Iowa poll makes two of four states polled in which Gingrich is in third place. If Cain for any reason were to implode, the only “soldier left standing” to challenge Romney would appear to be Gingrich. And based on all four of these surveys, the Perry campaign appears in need of a miracle.”
Note: InsiderAdvantage successfully polled the winners of the Iowa caucus in 2004 and 2008. We stress that this is a caucus state. That means the numbers may change as we get closer to the contest.
InsiderAdvantage/Newsmax 2012 New Hampshire Primary Poll
- Mitt Romney 39%
- Herman Cain 24%
- Ron Paul 11%
- Michele Bachmann 5%
- Newt Gingrich 5%
- Jon Huntsman 5%
- Rick Perry 2%
- Someone else 2%
- No opinion 7%
Conducted Oct. 16 among 409 likely voters, for a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent. Data have been weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation.
Inside the numbers:
Analysis by InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery: “It’s no shock to see Romney in the lead here, given that he is from nearby Massachusetts. But to see Cain in a solid second place comes as a bit of a shock to me. He picks up most of his support from men, while Romney does well with women and voters over 65 years old.”
All of the FEC reports are out now. Here’s my rundown on Rick Perry. (See the Mitt Romney rundown here).
Top level numbers first:
| Perry Q3 | |
| Receipts | $17,009,441 |
| itemized | $16,310,621 |
| No itemized | 10,091 |
| Ave. itemized | $1,616 |
| unitemized | $698,820 |
| % unitemized | 4.11% |
| Disbursements | $2,098,466 |
| COH | $15,078,415 |
| Debt | $339,119 |
That is a solid kick off quarter for Perry. (Note: the quarter that you kick-off your campaign should be one of the strongest.)
Perry didn’t eclipse Romney’s Q2 kick-off of $18 Million but his $17 Million take in Q3 means this race is far from over.
Here’s my question though. Perry’s unitemized number is extremely low in my opinion. For a guy who kicked off his campaign at a Blogger’s forum I would expect the lower-end donations to be larger than 4% of the total donations. By comparison, Romney saw 14% of his donations unitemized. (more…)
InsiderAdvantage/Augusta Chronicle 2012 South Carolina GOP Primary Poll
- Herman Cain 32%
- Mitt Romney 16%
- Rick Perry 12%
- Newt Gingrich 8%
- Ron Paul 6%
- Michele Bachmann 6%
- Jon Huntsman 1%
- Someone else 4%
- No opinion 15%
Conducted Oct. 16 among 476 likely voters, for a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. Data have been weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation.
Inside the numbers:
Analysis by InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery: “Again, Herman Cain is running away with the hardcore conservative Republican vote. There really is no close challenger to Cain in South Carolina right now. Romney, Perry and Gingrich have the best chances of overtaking him.
“Cain’s Southern accent, which is sometimes lampooned on comedy shows, is a huge plus for him in a state that appreciates his style.”
InsiderAdvantage/Florida Times-Union 2012 Florida Primary Poll
- Mitt Romney 33%
- Herman Cain 30%
- Newt Gingrich 12%
- Rick Perry 3%
- Ron Paul 3%
- Michele Bachmann 1%
- Jon Huntsman 0%
- Someone else 2%
- No opinion 16%
Conducted Oct. 16 among 505 likely voters, for a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Inside the numbers:
Analysis by InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery: “Our last poll of Florida was when Rick Perry was red hot, right after he first joined the race some weeks ago. He now barely has a heartbeat.
Romney is running strong in Florida, but among hardcore Republicans, Cain has the edge. Remember that Florida requires substantial money to cover its many TV media markets. Cain would have to fill his campaign coffers to actually sustain these numbers in Florida. As of now, the only three candidates in double digits in Florida are Romney, Cain and Gingrich.
Project New West 2012 Nevada Caucus Poll
- Mitt Romney 31%
- Herman Cain 26%
- Rick Perry 12%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
- Ron Paul at 7%
- Michele Bachmann %
- Rick Santorum 2%
- Jon Huntsman 1%
This data in this memo is based on a random sample of 190 likely 2012 Republican Presidential Caucus-?goers in Nevada. Keating Research, Inc. conducted these live bilingual telephone interviews from September 25-27, 2011. The worst case margin of error at the 95% level for this sample of 190 is plus or minus 7.1%.
With the dates of the first primaries and caucuses still unsettled, the next several days and weeks will likely produce a lack of drama in the 2012 GOP nomination contest for president. (But surprises do happen!) In those days ahead, barring the unforeseen, The Prairie Editor will try to address the current environment of political issues, with less attention to a preoccupation with the candidates and the ups and downs of the individual campaigns.
But first, some quick thoughts on what has transpired so far.
There have been a series of “political bubbles” in the GOP contest since the campaigns began in earnest, beginning with Donald Trump, and continuing with Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and now, Herman Cain. Mr. Cain’s “bubble” seems to have peaked as this is written, but his sympathetic temperament may mean a decline in his numbers in the polls will not be as severe as happened to the other three. Mitt Romney remains the so-called frontrunner, and his ability so far to outlast the “bubbles” of his rivals has strengthened his early claim to the nomination. But one formidable candidate remains. Initially a “first-tier” candidate, Newt Gingrich made some serious campaign blunders, lost most of his initial high octane campaign staff, and seemed headed for obscurity. Unlike Tim Pawlenty, who showed much promise, but suffered similar mishaps, Mr. Gingrich did not withdraw, but re-formed his campaign as an untraditional one, emphasizing his own issues and political skills. His poll numbers took a nosedive to low single digits, but now have risen to low double digits, and he has clearly been the overall winner so far (along with Mr. Romney) of the candidate debates. He seems to have positioned himself as the next “anyone-but-Romney candidate,” and The Prairie Editor thinks his will be the next (and last) “bubble.” Many commentators, including young conservative ones, have written him off, and I have been reluctant to suggest he has any chance to win, but poll numbers and favorable comments about his debate performances have been so positive, I am making this prediction (with the caveat that Mr. Gingrich can be his own worst enemy). Provided that he will avoid rashness, and maintain his new self-discipline, he has a small opening in the weeks ahead. He is still a long-shot, but his sheer talent and experience is not to be underestimated.
President Obama’s fundraising continues to be considerable, but there are credible reports that it is approximately 20% below expectations. It now seems unlikely that his financial advantage will overwhelm his Republican opponent, as it did in 2008 and was predicted to be again in 2012. (It is also dubious that millionaires are begging him to “tax us more.” A simple rejoinder is that if these rich voters want to pay more taxes, they are free to do so voluntarily. There is no evidence so far of this largesse, so these reports can be fairly assessed as propaganda and false.)
The Occupy Wall Street protests continue as the weather across the nation is unseasonably mild. There is no evidence so far that they are producing either their desired results or enhancing the prospect of Democrats who have belatedly embraced them.
Early assessments of likely contested U.S. house and senate races indicate modest gains for Republican in the house, and significant gains for the GOP in the senate.
Foreign policy issues have played a minimal role in the presidential contest so far, but international events have historically had a way of intervening in purely domestic campaigns. Sometimes, the defining “last-minute surprise” is a domestic event (as the mortgage banking crisis was in 2008), but often it originates (or seems to originate) overseas. No matter how the campaign goes from here on, there will be “surprise” possibilities all the way to the first week of November, 2012.
Both Democrat and Republicans should already be doing some serious thinking about the 2016 primary and caucus calendar. The game-playing and uncertainty in the GOP 2012 calendar should be an alarm of likely chaotic conditions in the future.
In a previous column, I made some suggestions for the remaining 2012 Republican presidential debate formats. It my be even more important for both President Obama and his likely opponents to give some thought to the presidential debates that will take place between the two nominees. The Prairie Editor thinks a new format is long overdue.
________________________________________________________________________
Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
Thought I’d share this with you all. I can’t figure out how to get NBC’s videos embedded but here’s the link to RealClearPolitics which has it. Enjoy.
(I normally would tend to shy away from theological discussions on what is essentially a political blog, but given the recent flap over Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity, it seems like this might be an opportunity to stray a bit into the often murky, but always fascinating waters of religion and politics).
“It is better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.” This quote of Martin Luther occurred to me in the wake of Pastor Robert Jeffress’ speech at the Values Voter’s Summit, in which he argued that Mormonism is a false religion, and as a consequence, Christians shouldn’t vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Luther has always been one of my primary theological influences, and though I am currently a member of an Anglican church, I am more theologically Lutheran than not. Unsurprisingly then, I think this “wise Turk” comment has a lot of relevance for this current discussion about Mormon candidates. Indeed, it hearkens back to a very old tradition within the Christian faith of being subject to “pagan” princes who, as Pastor Jeffress might say, believed in a “false religion”. As far back as the first century Christians have found themselves subjects, and sometimes citizens, of lands ruled over by those whose religious beliefs were different from and often antithetical to their own.
How have Christians responded, and how should we today? First, I think there is a clear historical distinction between a non-Christian ruler and an anti-Christian state. Romans 13 teaches Christians that rulers, even those who in no way acknowledge God’s authority, receive their authority to rule from God and are “ordained for your good”. There is a long, deep and seldom acknowledged tradition of prayerful Christian support for even those non-Christian rulers who persecuted them. However, some states are actually structurally anti-Christian. In the Roman Empire, for example, the imperial cult, which claimed Caesar was a god and demanded his worship in military and civil service, was considered so idolatrous by Christians that any participation in Roman government could imperil one’s soul. When a government makes explicit theological or world view claims antithetical to the claims of Christianity, as many Marxist-Leninist regimes have in the twentieth century, Christians must take a firm stance against them, either through non-Participation or active resistance. But if a non-Christian ruler allows the church to go about its business unmolested, and does not seek to impose his or her will upon it, then there is no necessity for such opposition. Christianity has always held that the state has a very specific role: maintaining good order, punishing the wicked and so on. These are all functions that can be performed perfectly well by someone who doesn’t accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed.
To be clear, I don’t think Mormons are in any way within the bounds of Orthodox Christianity. On issues as diverse as the nature of Christ, the doctrine of God, the after-life and many more, Mormons hold positions that are quite simply beyond the bounds of Christianity. So, from a religious perspective, I wish they would all return to the fold of orthodoxy. But from a political perspective, why should I care whether Mitt Romney believes in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Buddha, Deepak Chopra or the flying spaghetti monster? I don’t care how Romney, Huntsman or even Rick Perry chooses to pray, I care how they will govern if elected. Because, as a Christian citizen of the United States, I have a calling to help ensure that my fellow citizens are governed as well as possible, and if that means voting for a “wise Turk” for President in 2012, then so be it.
The other day, Pastor Robert Jeffress introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit. He took the opportunity to declare two things:
That set off a firestorm. Now Rick Perry’s supporters (including his wife) are claiming to be victims because people are attacking them because of their faith. David Shedlock wrote a Front Page article here at Race4 complaining of that very thing.
I would like to respond to him, if I may. I will begin by first quoting from the KJV Bible:
From the New Testament:
50 … Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
(Matthew 26:50-52 emphasis added )
From the Old Testament:
27 Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.
(Proverbs 26:27)
The meaning of these two passages are quite clear. If you draw a weapon or dig a pit to trap someone, don’t be surprised if that same weapon is used against you. If you use religion to encourage people to vote a certain way, do not be surprised if that very same weapon is used against you. If you use politics to attack another religion, people will use politics to attack yours.
To his credit, Rick Perry has repudiated Jeffress’ contention that the Mormons were an unchristian cult. However, I do not believe he has repudiated the second contention yet. Until he does so, it will remain a pit for him. But even then, it is very hard to unring a bell, and Jeffress has rung a bell loud and clear. Its reverberations will continue to follow the Perry campaign for a long time.
To me, this whole episode isn’t so much about religion as it is about the competence, or rather the lack of it in Rick Perry and his campaign. Jeffress is a well-known anti-Mormon who has preached against voting for a Mormon a number of times. Why didn’t the Perry campaign do anything to avoid this blowup? It was entirely preventable. Yet they let events proceed.
Memories of Linus
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting interview with Mortimer Zuckerman. It leads off with this quote:
‘It’s as if he doesn’t like people,” says real-estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman of the president of the United States. Barack Obama doesn’t seem to care for individuals, elaborates Mr. Zuckerman, though the president enjoys addressing millions of them on television.
Which reminded me of a poster I had in my college dorm:
Zuckerman, who supported Obama, has soured on him. He makes a number of excellent points (I recommend reading the article, regardless of how you feel about Peanuts). He concludes with this:
Harry Truman had a wonderful definition for the presidency. He said the president has to be someone who can persuade the American people to do what they don’t want to do and to like it. … Somebody like Reagan had that authority. He was liked so much and he had a kind of moral authority. That’s what this president has lost.”
The Totalitarian Left
A few weeks ago, the Democrat governor of North Carolina, Beverly Perdue, called for the suspension of elections in the US (which would be the only way she could stay in office). Afterwards she claimed to have been joking, but you can listen to her remarks here. If she was joking, she has a remarkably deadpan delivery.
That, of course, is old news. But Perdue is not alone in her contempt for the Constitution. One of our local totalitarians, Jesse Jackson Jr., has called for the president to rule by decree.
Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.
“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
JJJ riffs further on his ‘congress in rebellion’ idea and makes explicit reference to the Civil War:
“President Obama tends to idealize — and rightfully so — Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function,” Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.
“On several occasions now, we’ve seen … the Congress is in rebellion, determined, as Abraham Lincoln said, to wreck or ruin at all costs.
That’s right, there certainly are a lot of parallels between congress not passing a bill the president wants and a secessionist movement. Pretty much the same thing, other than the setting up of a separate government, raising an army, and firing on a US fort. Certainly Obama would be justified in doing pretty much anything he pleases under these conditions.
Although I haven’t paid much attention to Illinois redistricting, it appears my village may now be in JJJ’s district. My former representative has announced she’ll oppose him. I wish her well, though she’s a liberal and served as a Pelosi Puppet (she voted for ObamaCare after saying she would oppose it unless abortion provisions were removed). At least she’s considerably less stupid.
“Break” Is a Racist Term
Bet you didn’t know that. Pretty much any word is racist, of course, if it’s used against Obama by a Republican.
He quoted Demint saying that “If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” For clarity, Schultz repeated the offending line, “It will break him.”
Dr. James Peterson, director of Africana studies at Lehigh University, explained that “break” is a racist verb, “a term that was used to destroy, mentally and physically, slaves.”
So there.
An outlier, or a signal of things to come…?
Richmond Times-Dispatch / Christopher Newport University Virginia Republican Primary
- Romney – 44%
- Cain – 12%
- Perry – 10%
- Paul – 6%
- Gingrich – 5%
- Bachmann – 4%
- Santorum – 2%
- Huntsman – 1%
- Undecided – 14%
General Election Matchups
- Romney – 46%
- Obama – 42%
- Perry – 43%
- Obama – 43%
Survey of 1,027 registered voters (margin of error +/-3.1%) was conducted Oct 3-8. The GOP primary numbers have a margin of error of +/-5.4%.
October has seen Race 4 2012 welcome its 2 millionth visitor of the year. Not bad for a non-corporate, wholly volunteer operated blog!
I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Race 4 2012 staff for all of their contributions. The success of this site, from the very beginning, has been because of their contributions. All of us have been truly blessed by the caliber of talent that the site has been able to attract.
Also, I wished to thank the R4’12 community from the bottom of my heart for their readership, as well as for the contributions of out “Page 2″ authors in the comments. I am humbled that so many people would chose to make Race42012 a part of their day.
I have no doubt that our community will continue to grow as the race progresses thanks to each and every one of you and your contributions. My most sincere thanks to everyone for all you have done to make our little corner of the Internet a success.
I must confess that I thought I knew everything about Herman Cain. However, I somehow completely missed the fact that Mr. Cain released a gospel album in the 1990′s and still performs the songs on the campaign trail from time-to-time. Thanks to Keith Price, here is a clip of Mr. Cain performing one of his songs at the Iowa Straw Poll back in August:
