2012 US General Election Discussions: Start to Finish

[Cin]

The Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to get around the holding of Citizens United, took SCOTUS’s statement that independent spending cannot corrupt and pointed to evidence that such spending has in fact corrupted in Montana. When the state of Montana loses this battle, and it will, they will have forced the U.S. Supreme Court into making it abundantly clear to all who are listening that they are uninterested and actively hostile toward state anti-corruption laws. It will be impossible to ignore the meaning behind the Supreme Court's ruling which is that all they are really interested in is that the wealthy and the corporations get to use their overwhelming, unequitable, and unfair percentage of the wealth to control elections.

Will anyone be listening? Can that government be saved, the one that is of the people, by the people, for the people and in real danger of perishing from the earth?

Montana Ban on Corporate Campaigning Heading to U.S. Supreme Court

Going for Broke in Montana Campaign Finance Case

Fact? We Don't Need No Stinking Facts: The Montana Supreme Court, SCOTUS, and Citizens United.

[AtLast]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ter_socialflow

Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception By Amanda Marcotte


After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.

That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.

[Kobi]

Good idea. Maybe not so good name. "Truth teams" make me think Quantanamo and Cheney and Joe McCarthy and related stuff.


The Obama campaign is today beginning a new effort to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a "grassroots communications team" they're calling the Truth Team.

"The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama's record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives," the campaign said in a statement.

The teams will be first launched in 13 "swing states," including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

The rollout also includes a social media blitz, directing supporters to three new websites: KeepingHisWord.com, which highlights Obama's record and "promises kept"; KeepingGOPHonest.com, which highlights GOP policy positions; and AttackWatch.com, which fact-checks claims made against Obama on the campaign trail.

"If the other guys are going to run a campaign based on misrepresenting the president's record - and their own - we have two options: sit back and let these lies go unchallenged, or fight back with the truth," deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said in an email. "We're fighting back."

So far, the "other guys" mentioned on the three websites are almost exclusively limited to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. There is one mention of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and one mention of the pro-Republican super PAC Americans for Prosperity.

Obama organized a similar grassroots effort in 2008 - Fight the Smears - that involved more than 1 million supporters, campaign aides said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...-abc-news.html

[Cin]

Published on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Believe It or Not, Santorum's Surge Is Scary
by Tony Norman

I've been told that it is way too early to begin showing signs of Rick Santorum derangement syndrome.

A well-meaning reader suggested that even if the Republicans were suicidal enough to hand the former Pennsylvania senator the nomination, his defeat in the general election would dwarf the blowout Barry Goldwater suffered at the hands of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The argument goes like this: Rick Santorum is such an implacable foe of modernity that casting a vote for him is only possible if one shares his nostalgia for the chauvinism, authoritarianism and unbearable whiteness of the 1950s.

According to this argument, Mr. Santorum is a protest vote writ large across the Republican firmament by grass-roots conservatives repulsed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's malleability and phoniness. It isn't a vote for Mr. Santorum's political theology as much as it is a rejection of the likely apostasy of the Republican frontrunner.

This also happens to be the prevailing view of the pundits toiling daily in newspapers and the cable news commissariat. The assumption that Rick Santorum can't be elected president is axiomatic in the circles I frequent, too. He was a punch line long before he lost his Senate race by 18 points in 2006.

Yet, a mere half dozen years after what should have ended his dreams of ever holding elected office again, Mr. Santorum is poised to steal the Michigan primary from Mr. Romney, although the polls have tightened in recent days.

Many Democrats are salivating over the prospect of an Obama/Santorum showdown in November. The only contest that could possibly make a Democrat happier would be one in which Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump were the Republican nominee.

Ironically, Mitt Romney, the gelatinous Gibraltar of Republican politics, stands the best chance of making the race for the White House competitive among independent voters he has alienated in recent months. After a hard tack to the right, Mr. Romney wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep embracing the middle to beat Mr. Obama in November. It's that kind of mercenary pragmatism that enrages conservatives who value principle over short-term electoral victory.

Because Mr. Romney has residual appeal with independents, Democrats would rather Mr. Obama faced someone with more extremist views -- someone like Rick Santorum. I understand the logic. I just don't buy it.

I think it is irresponsible to underestimate the appeal of a demagogue when so many Americans are suffering and the public mood is so mercurial. All it would take would be a few weeks of $5 a gallon gas and a Democratic electorate demoralized because of some administration misstep to put even the strangest protest candidacy into play.

Mr. Santorum is a principled culture warrior who doesn't believe in evolution, man-made global warming, sex for purposes other than having children, separation of church and state, tax-financed public education (except by Penn Hills of his home-schooled kids), a Constitutional right to privacy, contraception, some forms of prenatal testing, or freedom of conscience if it contradicts his church's edicts or his party platform.

Mr. Santorum would like to see doctors who perform abortions criminally prosecuted. He has said that war with Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions is in America's best interests, despite the painful lessons of the past decade and the skepticism of our own generals.

If he is elected president, women should expect an administration openly hostile to their interests on a number of fronts. As for "blah people" -- union members and academics -- well, they can just forget it.

The former senator's comments about Mr. Obama's "theology" over the weekend make it clear that his version of environmental stewardship is more about exploiting the earth than respecting it. It is a mentality closer to that of a 19th-century robber baron than someone informed by modern science or concerns about environmental integrity.

So, how did Mr. Santorum make it this far? How is his candidacy even possible in the modern world? Some pundits refer to his "likability" compared to his rivals. What are they talking about? What has he said or done during his surge that paints him in any way as likable?

There's some Rick Santorum derangement syndrome going around all right, but it's not affecting me.

[Toughy]

Rick Santorum has pissed off the Dutch...............yep he has the Dutch people and government mad at him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...show/#46520567

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Rick Santorum has pissed off the Dutch...............yep he has the Dutch people and government mad at him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...show/#46520567

A bunch of socialist bicycle-riding tulip growers are upset - like that's going to disturb a conservative.

[MsMerrick]

The President of Ireland vs a Tea Bagger...
Michael D Higgins v Michael Graham

[Kobi]

Organization of Gay Conservatives and their Straight Allies Will Commit Significant Resources to Electing Mitt Romney

GOProud is the first and only organization representing gay Americans to endorse Governor Romney’s Presidential bid. “The truth is that this election is too important to wait or to sit on the sidelines,” continued LaSalvia. “We plan on spending every day between now and November working to make Obama a one term President.”

“For far too long, the gay left in this country has been allowed to dictate what they believe qualify as ‘gay issues.’ We think that jobs, the economy, healthcare, retirement security and taxes are all ‘gay issues,’ and on every single one of those issues, Mitt Romney is light years better than President Obama,” said LaSalvia.

The GOProud endorsement was not, however, a unanimous one. Two members of the GOProud Board voted against the Romney endorsement.

“We don’t agree with Governor Romney on every single issue – indeed we disagree strongly with him on his support for a federal marriage amendment and we have urged Romney publicly to take bolder and more conservative stances on tax reform, entitlement reform and spending,” said LaSalvia. “Given the vote on our board, obviously not everyone in our organization will agree with this endorsement, and we respect that.”

http://goproud.org/page.aspx?pid=431

-------


I never heard of these people before but their core beliefs and tenets interestingly show how people can support stuff that may not be in their own best interests:


What we believe
The so-called “gay agenda” has been defined narrowly by the gay left. In contrast to the approach of the left, GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Our Core Beliefs & Tenets
1 TAX REFORM
We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax would treat everyone – gay or straight – equally. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 HEALTHCARE REFORM
Repeal of Obamacare; encourage free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.

4 RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.

5 HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING
Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unnecessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS
Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.

7 DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION
Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.

8 EMPOWERING INDIVIDUALS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
Protecting 2nd amendment rights. The answer to stopping bias motivated crime is not the Hate Crimes laws, instead we support empowering individuals to lawfully protect themselves.

9 RESPECTING STATES RIGHTS
Supporting a strong 10th Amendment that limits the scope of the federal government and empowers states; repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and return power to regulate marriage and family law to the states.

10 EDUCATION REFORM
The answer to the serious problem of bullying is not more federal intervention in education. Instead, we support empowering parents and families by supporting school choice initiatives and protecting the right of parents to homeschool their children.

[BrutalDaddy]

I'm just curious Kobi, exactly how is GOProud harming themselves?

Thanks for any clarification you can give.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by BrutalDyke

I'm just curious Kobi, exactly how is GOProud harming themselves?

Thanks for any clarification you can give.

This group espouses conservative and libertarian principles which they feel will improve the daily lives or gays and lesbians. Lets look at just a few of their tenets:

2 HEALTHCARE REFORM
Repeal of Obamacare; encourage free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory


People forget that it was Mitt Romney who started mandatory health when he was the governor of Massachusetts. All Obama did was impliment the exact same plan on a federal level.

The rational each used was different however. Romney did it because health care providers were complaining about their loss of income in having to treat so many uninsured people. He created a new source of weath for insurance companies and new sources of income for doctors, hospitals etc.

Obama did it to protect those people who didnt have access to or couldnt afford health insurance.

Big difference.



3 SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.



This is an elitist thing. There are some very wealthy and well to do queer folk but the majority of us are everyday people barely making ends meet. Where will these people get the money to put into a personal savings account?

Inheretance laws are another issue without a federal recongition of gay marriage. How many horror stories have we heard of families of origin stepping in and asserting their rights in inheretances despite wills and trusts and other legal measures queer have used to protect their partners?

Without legal marriages recognized on a federal level, how many queer spouses in states that allow gay marriage are subjected to unfair federal inheretance taxes because their marriage isnt recognized by the federal government - all of them.



6 FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS
Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities


This is great except the republicans, the moral majority, and Mitt can be considered a radical regime as well for their anti gay stances. How do this improve the lives of queer people? The republicans have been waging a very noticable and very organized war on women - how does this help lesbians?


7 DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION
Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.



Where would this country be today, if we allowed the states to decide on the abolishment of slavery? Or on the right of women to vote? Not having a federal amendment on gay marriage leaves a great deal of our community vulnerable and at the whim of local politicians and voters.

Our right to marry should not be optional based on local preferences. We should have the same right to marry as any straight person, and as a result, we should have the same benefits and rights afforded to straight folks.

To advocate for less than equality for all is illogical.


Those are just a few examples where GOProud, as a gay organization is advocating for things that are detrimental to gays as a whole.

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by BrutalDyke

I'm just curious Kobi, exactly how is GOProud harming themselves?

Thanks for any clarification you can give.

If I may also respond, you might look for this outstanding documentary that is chock-full of apparently self-loathing conservative gay Republicans.

"Outrage," a documentary from filmmaker Kirby Dick, takes issue with the secret lives of closeted gay politicians -- especially conservative Republicans who outwardly oppose gay rights.

According to Magnolia Pictures, "Outrage" is an "indictment of the hypocrisy of closeted politicians with appalling gay rights voting records who actively campaign against the LGBTQ community they covertly belong to."

In the documentary, Dick lambastes the mainstream media for not better investigating the politicians' "hypocrisy" and double lives. He told New York magazine that the film explores "the issues surrounding closeted politicians and their hypocrisy in voting anti-gay -- and how these people have harmed millions of Americans for many years."

Marriage equality is only one example of an issue that conservatives vote against. Why would a gay conservative support a party that felt they had no right to legally marry?

[chefhmboyrd]

I didn't vote last election...

given the choice between two douchebags i chose to abstain...
but this year may be different.

Obama has won me over. I believe he really does care, and is trying to make things better.

...and all hell will break loose if Mitt gets in office. The teabaggers will take as many freedoms and rights as they can, and turn this country over to the 1% once and for all. This isn't just paraniod fears, this is real, and happening before our very eyes.

Also, there are several justices on the Supreme Court who are old an will need to be replaced soon, and I will be damned if we get another scum sucking minion of the robber baron clods appointed to the high court.

lastly, if things don't go well this fall, I may be forced to enter the fray....

message to the Right Wing Immoral Minority:

"Don't make me run for public office mother fuckers..........
you will RUE THE DAY you bunch of greedy wallstreet zombies pissed of this guy!"

[AtLast]

It is critical that Teapublican candidates are not elected and those that are in office, be thrown the hell out. There is much more than the presidential election to get involved with. State and local races matter.

Govenors races are among the most important to take an active role in. Your state and federal Congressional seats matter a whole lot as it is possible (though, pretty damn difficult) for the Dems to take back the House.

And the last thing we need is for the Senate to fall into the hands of a GOP majority.

Here are some links that you can use to get involved. Volunteering a couple of hours per week can and DOES make a difference. Yeah, an old civics teacher calling on the troops to be part of the democratic process- can't help myself.


WOMEN LEAD link- http://www.dccc.org/pages/women_lead
http://democraticgovernors.org/

Here is info about the state (decline) of women Democratic Govenors-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-women-governors-bev-perdue-christine-gregoire_n_1608808.html


http://www.democrats.org/?nosplash=true


https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/be...ource=Dems_nav

This one has info on all democratic races and ways to volunteer- http://www.dccc.org/