WorldTraveller

No doubt, that in the most recent CNN and FOX polling, numbers are trending towards Obama. For some reason the daily tracking polls of GALLUP and Rasmussen are fairly consistent with where they have been. My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between. Having said that, recent polling in Virginia and Colorado seem to be moving back towards Romney a little bit. In any case, the dynamics will have to change, if he continues to play small ball with O, they will lose.

I would say that the polling numbers had moved slightly in Obamas favor over the past few weeks and that ROmneys unfavorables have risen some. Having said that, the two daily trackers Gallup and Rasmussen are virtually unchanged and that the CNN and Reuters polling is pretty consistent with where it has been over the past few months, giving Obama larger leads than most other polling. CNN, Reuters and Pew Polling have consistently given considerably larger leads than the rest of them.

So in other words, you got nothing, as usual...Hey, I gotta give you some credit, at least this time you were able to communicate a thought without having to post a youtube video

Yes We Can!

Except that's not what he did. He requested more flexibility not to waive the worker requirements. That's the main distinction between the two - And see post #5 that debunks Politifacts findings.

Maybe, but when you say “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job, They just send you a welfare check” That stings. Now, the only thing that one can question about this ad is that he says it as fact. That isn't the case, however it COULD be the case. The Heritage Foundation has a good explanation on this as well does "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history, chiefly because of its core requirement that able-bodied parents eligible for welfare assistance work, search for work, or train to work. Its centerpiece (and the most controversial provision at the time of its passage) is Section 407, “Mandatory Work Requirements,” which sets out an absolute requirement that state welfare programs achieve specific work-participation rates or forfeit federal funding. Even after President Bill Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation, Congress refused to budge on the core requirement of Section 407, insisting on strong work incentives to discourage abuses and to help lift recipients off of welfare and out of poverty. And it worked: Employment surged, caseloads dropped, and child poverty plummeted. Under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration now claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. In particular, it argues that Section 1115, which provides waiver authority for states to establish demonstration projects, authorizes it to approve state programs that “test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,” including different “definitions of work activities and engagement.” In this way, states could evade Section 407’s work-participation requirement without sacrificing federal funding. But the Obama Administration’s claim that it may weaken or waive work requirements is contrary to law. Section 407 establishes a stand-alone requirement for state welfare plans that brooks no exceptions, befitting its status as the core component of the 1996 reform. It is also absent from the list of requirements that may be waived under Section 1115. Indeed, to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to whether the work requirements could be waived immediately following passage of the 1996 reform, a separate provision specifically states that waivers “shall not affect the applicability of section [407].” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet Mickey Kaus from the Daily Caller: "Congress . . . put a lot of effort into resisting efforts by governors (including GOP governors), bureaucrats, paleoliberals, and non-profit softies to water down the work requirements (by allowing, for example, extended “job search” or BS-type activities like self-esteem classes, and more generally by emphasizing what will help “place” existing recipients in “good” private jobs instead of deterring possible future recipients from making the choices that land them on welfare). The authors of the law thought they’d restricted HHS’ authority to undermine the work requirements. Comes now HHS secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius to claim she has broad authority to dispense with all those requirements through waivers, subject only to her opinion as to what is “likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the welfare law. TNR‘s Ed Kilgore loyally declares ,”The Obama administration has not changed the architecture of the 1996 welfare reform law at all.” But that’s wrong. The legal architecture of the work requirements has been altered dramatically. Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are … requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants — but, hey, you can trust her!" http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/08/the-case-for-romneys-welfare-attack/ Now you are seeing a fervent defense from the liberal media and their left leaning fact checkers such as Politifact (who btw is a sham of a fact checking source) The reason why they are coming to a strong defense on this issue is two fold. a) It's a potent issue that certainly hits liberals at their core b) They see it as a race issue, one that implies Obama a black man (I know that goes without saying, but it provides context in this particular case) being the champion of welfare a perceived black persons form of handout. From what I'm reading, this is a real issue, one that Romney should hammer away.

Romney has a pretty hard hitting ad that is set to hit the airwaves on this topic. I believe on his bus tour thingy he's got lined up for this weekend he's gonna hit this theme often.

They don't care, most of them are a complicit group of cynical race-baiters.

Conservatives, rhetorically speaking, attack with bluntness. They seem to hammer you over the head over and over and over into submission. Liberals attack with sleaze, they hit you on an emotional level, they often charge conservatives as racists and bigots. But that's the breadbasket old-skool liberal way of doing things, this Obama attack machine has taken it to a whole new level, they've suggested that Romney is a felon, that he has in a heartless manner killed a lady, hid money overseas as if he was a mafia member. They've suggested that Conservatives want people to breathe dirty air, throw granny off the cliff etc etc. Just look, you've got dipshits like Dr. Dareus who believe this crap, he spouted a few of these DNC talking points. I mean who could forget his "Conservatives don't care about people who make under $500K" These tactics work with some of those left-leaning folks with the IQ of a turnip. This is what they're up against. Hope and Change

I would refer you to post #31

Lybob is a vile stinky turd

I have no doubt in my mind that if it was a conservative who placed this ad against a Democratic black congressman, it would of been depicted as racist. That this would conjure images of a black man harming an old white lady, however, considering this is a conservative black man, the media my guess will remain mum on this topic. The double standards are extraordinarily hypocritical

Since we're talking about "beating up" This is what we've been reduced to: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/too-far-new-attack-ad-targeting-allen-west-depicts-him-beating-women/

Printing money is not an "Obama" thing, sure he endorses it more so than Romney, but we've had a long tradition of this exercise in futility. However, I would say that Obama has no regard whatsoever in deficit spending, and honestly believes in his core that it is a right-wing boogeyman myth, created to scare from his perspective a bunch of mindless gun-toting, god fearing hicks..

I'm on a pc now, but even on my ipad its like this.

<p>I did try typing it in paragraphs, but for someone reason this website has completely changed on me. When I respond to posts, it shows up in that format. Also, I don't have all the functions to quote, bold, underline etc. I don't know whats up with this.

I know, I keep hearing this from some of the strategists, that it's going to be a "Brave Heart" sort of "hold, hold, hold " strategy where they allow most of Obama's campaign coffers to deplete, and the Romney team effectively unleashes the huge money advantage when most voters are paying attention.This is what I keep hearing, but I haven't seen it yet. What I find most distressing is that they haven't come out with a serious Defense/Offense of the positives of what Bain has done. There is a very good story to tell, and as Joe-the-dumbass stated the word "Bain" in some peoples minds has become associated in a negative light. This NEEDS to change.There are five main factors that I see between now and the election.1) The economy, if it continues to muddle along, I would say that becomes a slight net negative for the president, if it dips, huge advantage for Romney if it slightly gets better, it becomes a push.2) The VP selection. I say go for bold. These elections are about turnout, and by choosing a Ryan, you will get a more enthusiastic base, you will have a sharper and clearer contrast against Mr. Big Government and the election will become about big things again, because there is no one better at communicating the need to reform entitlements and the dangers of debt than Paul Ryan.3) The Convention. It is a great time to introduce himself as a credible person to lead the country. If he can have a great speech, with a supporting cast of great speakers, then that can place a favorable impression on undecided voters and gin up the base.4) The huge advertising and money advantage Romney will have going into the last 90 days. They will blanket the airwaves, set up massive telephone banks and knock on lots of doors. The ads will have a saturating effect, so they have to be done well, they have to be effective and they have to follow a narrative, if not, then it just becomes extra noise that people will tune out.5) The campaign. They have to be clear on their message and remain positive. Most voters are already disappointed in President Obama's performance, they'd like to see a change, they just want to make sure that the alternative could be better. So I would hope they talk about big things.

He's always been for gay marriage, which is fine, I have the same view, but at least we all know that it was a cynical political calculation to win over votes in 2008. A true profile in courage. Also, as Nanker stated, all you little pin heads who are outraged or bothered by the Chick Fil-a dude are all a bunch of hypocrites, where was your outrage for Obama when he held the same supposed position? I'll tell you, right up your ass, that's where. Hypocrites.

I've recently changed my opinion. I do believe that Obama has won the past 6 weeks, the race as the WSJ has noted has become about small things, Bain Capital, Mitt's "Gaffes" overseas, his taxes and etc. etc. This is what the Obama attack machine wants it to be about, rather than focus on his putrid record on the economy, debt and his failure of leadership to address the entitlements, this is what we have been reduced to, petty, vicious small ball politics. The dynamic is going to have to change if Romney wants to win.

You've had Bill Kristol and Steven Hayes make a push for Paul Ryan from the Weekly standard, then Rich Lowry from NRO and now the WSJ came out with an editorial in favor of him as well. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577577190186374230.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop - The case for Mr. Ryan is that he best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election. More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline. Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda—before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts. And he has done so as part of a larger vision that stresses tax reform for faster growth, spending restraint to prevent a Greek-like budget fate, and a Jack Kemp-like belief in opportunity for all. He represents the GOP's new generation of reformers that includes such Governors as Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and New Jersey's Chris Christie. As important, Mr. Ryan can make his case in a reasonable and unthreatening way. He doesn't get mad, or at least he doesn't show it. Like Reagan, he has a basic cheerfulness and Midwestern equanimity. As for Medicare, the Democrats would make Mr. Ryan's budget a target, but then they are already doing it anyway. Mr. Romney has already endorsed a modified version of Mr. Ryan's premium-support Medicare reform, and who better to defend it than the author himself? Republicans are likely to do worse if they merely play defense on Medicare and other entitlements. The way to win on the issue is go on offense and contrast Mr. Romney's patient-centered reform with President Obama's policy of government price controls and rationing medical care via a 15-member panel of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. *** Personalities aside, the larger strategic point is that Mr. Romney's best chance for victory is to make this a big election over big issues. Mr. Obama and the Democrats want to make this a small election over small things—Mitt's taxes, his wealth, Bain Capital. As the last two months have shown, Mr. Romney will lose that kind of election. To win, Mr. Romney and the Republicans have to rise above those smaller issues and cast the choice as one about the overall direction and future of the country. Americans tell pollsters they are anxious and unhappy precisely because they instinctively know the country is troubled in ways it hasn't been since the 1970s. They know the economy is growing too slowly to raise middle-class incomes, while the government is growing too fast to be affordable. Above all, Americans are hungry for leadership. They want leaders willing to take on the hard issues, preferably without the rancor and polarization that have defined Mr. Obama's Presidency. But they will reward leaders who succeed despite the rancor, as Wisconsin voters showed by their huge turnout in support of Governor Scott Walker this year. Whatever doubts Americans may have about Mr. Romney's empathy or background, more of them will turn out for him if they see a leader with a vision and plan worthy of the current difficult moment. This is the kind of candidate and message that voters need to see in the Republican convention this month and into the fall, and it is the message that Mr. Romney's choice of a running mate should reinforce. -

Of course they were serious about it, it was on his website, and they'll believe anything that comes from them, just ask Dr. Dareus. Nevermind the fact that Romney never made any such suggestion of eliminating the loop holes, tax breaks or deductions for folks under $250K, it's just automatically assumed that he would, because based on their "non partisan" projections the only way for it to be revenue neutral is get rid of these "middle class" deductions and breaks. That may or may not be the case, even though the growth projections from this "non partisan" group, because of the tax break are virtually non existent. Growth be damned!

ummmm maybe because they usually do....

I don't know if he's top five, but he's damn good.

I sort of made that distinction, however there is a well-documented unprecedented concerted effort to expand the welfare rolls under this administration. This is Big Government on steroids.