Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”…George Washington

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

Anyone paying attention for years should be aware of the bias from CNN and Candy Crowley. Yesterday at Citizen Wells, the bias in favor of the LGBT community at Hofstra University was revealed.

“A cursory examination of the Hofstra University website reveals what can only be described as an inordinate emphasis on gay issues.

For example. On the first page of the scholarship opportunities we find:

“LGBT Activism Scholarship

In 2002, Hofstra University established an unprecedented scholarship program for students engaged in service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The program is designed to demonstrate Hofstra’s commitment to equality and support for LGBT individuals. The program also includes the Hofstra Law School Fellowships for Advocacy for the Equality of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, as well as the Mildred Elizabeth McGinnis Endowed scholarship for students in the humanities.”

“School of Law Scholarships”

“LGBT Rights Fellowship – The Law School supports a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Fellowship for students interested in pursuing advocacy work on behalf of these communities.”

LGBT Studies.

“LGBT Studies focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their history and culture, considering sexualities and genders as identities, social statuses, categories of knowledge, and as lenses that help us to frame how we understand our world. A central core of courses is complemented by interdisciplinary courses taught across campus or by specialized syllabi for students taking a course that could lend itself to LGBT studies. Currently, a minor in LGBT Studies is available as part of the Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/HCLAS/LGBT/index_LGBT.cfm

And last but not least.

“LGBT STUDIES PROGRAM, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

and

HOFSTRA CULTURAL CENTER
present
a conference

Queer Rhetoric
The 6th Annual LGBT Studies Conference

Friday and Saturday, March 16-17, 2012
Queer Rhetoric is a relatively new field situated at the intersection of LGBT Studies, Queer Theory, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. In short, Queer Rhetoric seeks to uncover the symbolic and performative strategies whereby queer identities have been and continue to be constructed in different times and places. Scholars working in this field locate the heteronormative occlusion of queer voices within a given cultural and social context and describe how queer voices develop a battery of technologies that offer a means of resistant expression. This conference will be the first ever devoted entirely to the subject of Queer Rhetoric. For more information click here.

Keynote Addresses will be given by:
Erik Gunderson
University of Toronto, Canada
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Symposium Scholar
The Reluctant Queerness of Ancient Rhetoric

and

Chuck E. Morris III
Boston College
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Conference Scholar
My Old Kentucky Homo: Abraham LIncoln is Here,
Queer, and Wants to Recruit You”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/obama-romney-debate-october-16-2012-hofstra-university-hempstead-ny-town-meeting-format-moderator-candy-crowley-cnn-hofstra-not-neutral-site/

Gallup is selecting the town hall meeting audience from undecided voters. Most of you are aware of the controversies surrounding polling methodologies and in many cases the skewing of results with an unrealistic representation of Democrats in the numbers. Recently Gallup changed it’s methodology midstream in the election cycle to the benefit of Obama.

From The Hill October 11, 2012.

“Obama approval rating gets a boost after Gallup tweaks its polling methodology”
“President Obama’s job approval rating spiked this month, according to Gallup’s daily tracking survey, but the jump may be the result of a shift in the polling outlet’s survey methodology.

Since late 2011, President Obama has held steady at just under 50 percent saying they approved of the job he was doing and just under 50 percent saying they disapproved.

Earlier this month, the trend line moved in favor of the president, and on Thursday it sat at 53 percent positive and 42 negative — a greater job approval rating than Obama enjoyed after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

However, this movement may have been provoked by a change in the pollster’s methodology, without which the president may have seen no change in job approval.

“As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures,” Gallup CEO Frank Newport wrote on Wednesday.

Gallup increased the proportion of cellphones in its tracking survey from 40 percent, and now splits its calls to cellphones and land lines evenly. Newport defended the switch, saying it was an attempt to “stay consistent with changes in the communication behavior and habits of those we are interviewing.”

“Gallup switched primarily to telephone interviewing a few decades ago based on the increased penetration of phones in American households and the increased costs of going into Americans’ homes for in-person interviewing,” Newport wrote. “Now we know, based on government statistics (and what we observe around us), that Americans are shifting rapidly from reliance on landline phones to mobile devices.”

Still, the timing of the change — one month out from the presidential election — has some on the right exasperated.

“What I can say is that it’s problematic to alter one’s methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation,”writes Jay Cost, polling analyst for the conservative Weekly Standard. “In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012!”

The controversy will likely be fuel for those conservatives who claimed polls from earlier in the cycle were skewed in favor of Democrats.

The Romney campaign and other Republicans said polls showing Obama with a significant lead over their candidate were inaccurate.”

Read more:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/261485-obama-gets-a-boost-after-gallup-tweaks-polling-methodology

It appears to me on the surface that using a higher percentage of cell phones could include more young people.

From Gallup.

“How does Gallup polling work?

Gallup polls aim to represent the opinions of a sample of people representing the same opinions that would be obtained if it were possible to interview everyone in a given country.

The majority of Gallup surveys in the U.S. are based on interviews conducted by landline and cellular telephones. Generally, Gallup refers to the target audience as “national adults,” representing all adults, aged 18 and older, living in United States.

The findings from Gallup’s U.S. surveys are based on the organization’s standard national telephone samples, consisting of directory-assisted random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. A computer randomly generates the phone numbers Gallup calls from all working phone exchanges (the first three numbers of your local phone number) and not-listed phone numbers; thus, Gallup is as likely to call unlisted phone numbers as listed phone numbers.

Within each contacted household reached via landline, an interview is sought with an adult 18 years of age or older living in the household who has had the most recent birthday. (This is a method pollsters commonly use to make a random selection within households without having to ask the respondent to provide a complete roster of adults living in the household.) Gallup does not use the same respondent selection procedure when making calls to cell phones because they are typically associated with one individual rather than shared among several members of a household.

When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night’s interviewing from Gallup’s Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup’s Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes.

After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

36 responses to “Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

  1. One question, for the benefit of the undecided women viewers, should be to Obama…..why did you let Hillary take the fall for Benghazi, using the term always meant for the POTUS….”the buck stops here”.

  2. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    Rule #26 of “The Democrat Party’s Manifesto”.

    26 – FEMINISTS and GAYS are the men of our party.

  3. CitizenWells,
    FYI
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/16/university-north-carolina-denies-iraq-vet-in-state-tuition-while-considering/#ixzz29TejrHqs

    EXCLUSIVE–The University of North Carolina, which is currently considering giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition benefits, denied an Army sergeant the same break even though she owns a home in the Tar Heel state and only moved away briefly because the military stationed her husband in Texas……………………………

    I guess you have your own collection of liberals and liberal logic in NC.

    Pete

  4. observer – recently Obama misquoted that saying. However, he said the buck stops with you.
    He must have meant Hillary.

  5. Thanks Pete.

  6. CW — Trying very hard not to be obnoxious (and I know I can be), just wanted to be sure you know I responded to your message from the previous thread.

    CW — In response to your accusation that my links were somehow misleading, I have to disagree. Nothing misleading at all. It is what I said it is. It is true that Romney has managed to steer clear of being associated with Alinsky… much the same way Obama managed to steer clear of many of his past associations. As we both know. What is misleading, however, is that Romney supporters condemn Obama’s connection (and rightly so) but completely ignore (or are ignorant of) Romney’s connections. At this point, I can’t find enough information to come to a conclusion, therefore I cannot dismiss it as unimportant. Perhaps you know something I don’t. Perhaps Romney himself denounced Alinsky and his methods that I’m not aware of. If you have further information that would allay my fears, please share 🙂

    In the meantime, a very recent article which clearly explains Alinsky’s dubious methods, as well as condemns Obama for his association.

    Obama taught “Destroy Middle Class”
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50229

  7. Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about Barack Obama the MSM Refuses to Report

  8. Carried over from the prior thread:

    Mia,
    May I add 2 cents worth? There is nothing inherently wrong with finding out certain information and posting it; however, it IS hard to understand why in the world one would want to be chipping away at the only other candidate that can beat the Marxist-Muslim that sits in the W.H. I say this gently and kindly.

    The battle has been enjoined. We are at war. Comments like yours really serve only one purpose on the eve of the second presidential debate, and that is to cast aspersion and dampen the spirits of those who are trying to win this battle. I’m sure you are not intentionally doing this, but the effect is the same regardless of how pure the motive may seem to be.

    I’ve never served in the military, but when troops are sent into battle, there has to be unity of purpose and they have to pull together with a common goal. At that point there is no room to begin questioning past history that has no bearing on the present tactical maneuvers. Just my personal thoughts.

  9. According to a Debka File report, Obama is trying to forestall the Syrian rebels against Assad. He is trying to keep Turkey from escalating its support and Saudi Arabia, too. I’m just wondering how long it will take before people wake up and see his Shiite–Iranian preferences? In any case, it now appears the rebels do not have the numbers to overcome Assad’s regime.

  10. Philo-Publius

    Candy Crowley to defy debate contract
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html

    I don’t mind the defiance as long as she is willing to hold Obama’s feet to the fire as she will hold Romney’s.

  11. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    The whole printed version of Don Fredrick’s “Just Happened”.

    http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/10/03/can-it-all-be-coincidence/

  12. CabbyAZ — Thank you for the thoughtful response, and I’m really trying to understand this viewpoint. But in all honesty, I see absolutely nothing to recommend Romney as the one to save our freedom and liberty. Romney himself has said he would sign the NDAA and assume the power to not only indefinitely detain citizens without due process, but assassinate citizens at will. Is there any greater assault on our freedom and rights? Obviously, either Obama or Romney will be (s)elected as president. We failed to adequately vet Obama four years ago and look where we are. I see us doing the same thing today with Romney. History doesn’t always repeat, but sometimes it rhymes. I have no power over who “wins” this election, but I do have the power to research and share my concerns. If it’s nothing, then it doesn’t hurt to share. But if it is something, then it’s vital to share. Better to know and not need it than to need it and not know. As always, people will have to conduct their own due diligence and come to their own conclusions.

  13. So, Mia, what are you saying?
    Allow Obama to stay in office?
    By any rational standard of decision making that would be foolish & destructive.

  14. Mia | October 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    ……I have no power over who “wins” this election, but I do have the power to research and share my concerns. If it’s nothing, then it doesn’t hurt to share. But if it is something, then it’s vital to share. Better to know and not need it than to need it and not know………
    *******************************
    And thank you, Mia, for your reasoned response. I appreciate your viewpoint but am unable to see what practical steps should be taken at this stage of the game, if you feel that Romney is really that bad.

    Frankly, he was not my choice in the primaries, and many others felt the same way. However, we are long past that point, and we are left with two choices – a man whose identity is really not certain and who has taken this country down the socialistic path faster than anyone previously – and another man, a known American, who believes in the capitalistic system, which O is trying to destroy.

    Furthermore, we can say that Romney is a good family man; what can we say for O? Romney was not hatched out of the criminal factions of Chicago. Can we say the same for O? I could go on and on.

    Romney is not perfect – no one is – but we have a choice of either continuing with the present known quantity or deciding that we will give the true American a chance to do what he says he wants to accomplish. We have nothing to lose by so doing and possibly everything to gain.

    If Romney wins, we will have to continue due diligence to bring influence to bear upon him and Congress to walk the straight and narrow constitutional way. There will be no vacation time for patriots.

  15. “Son of GOP U.S. Senate candidate Thompson apologizes to colleagues for Obama remark”

    “KENOSHA, WI (WTAQ) – The son of U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson has apologized to colleagues at his law firm, for telling Republican voters that they can send President Obama back to Kenya.

    Monday, the firm of Michael Best and Friedrich said it had nothing to do with its employee’s remarks – and it does not reflect the, “views, beliefs, or values” of the law firm.

    Jason Thompson spoke at a Kenosha County Republican brunch on Sunday, while campaigning on behalf of his father Tommy, who’s running against Democrat Tammy Baldwin for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat.”

    http://whbl.com/news/articles/2012/oct/16/son-of-gop-us-senate-candidate-thompson-apologizes-to-colleagues-for-obama-remark/

  16. Mia | October 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Mia,

    My response to you will not be as ‘thoughtful’ as my pal Cabby’s.

    If you want a perfect candidate, look elsewhere.

    Mitt Romney was my Governor and boss. If this guy was no good, I’d tell you and I’d also tell you why. He took this mess of a state and straightened it out, along with his Lt. Governor Kerry Healey and his super wife, Ann. The legislature at the time was 87% Dem and if he could get things done with that rotten hand of cards he was dealt, the guy deserves consideration, not wrath.

    Yes, I have done my due diligence on Mr. Romney, and he has been vetted by the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by electing him Governor in the bluest of the blue states. Is he the perfect candidate? No, but look at your alternative.

    Get on board, or be left behind with an illegal, Socialist administration for another four years; if that happens, prepare to watch America be destroyed from within. Your choice.

    Any questions, Mia?

  17. Three cheers for Thompson’s son. So far NOBODY ELSE has HAD THE BRASS to stand up and call a SPADE A SPADE. He can definitely rely upon the fact that I agree with him 100%. Keep saying it sonny, us old timers hear you LOUD AND CLEAR.
    (Just visiting today cleaning out personal property.)
    Have a great day everybody!

  18. Go get em,Jason. With your attitude you will probably end up POTUS VERY SOON. HAR HAR……..I’d sure vote for you!

  19. Gotta leave now……. my wife doesn,t know I am on the computer. Everytime I come over to get rid of some of my stuff,I sneak over to the computer and see what is goin on. HAR HAR.

  20. BYE BYE ALL!

  21. Howdy oldsailor, cabby & suek… love you guys.

    Watching the debate tonight? Let us know what you think.

  22. protectourcivilrightsfreedoms

    Re: Mia | October 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    citizenwells | October 16, 2012 at 3:13 pm |

    Please read this outstanding article below.
    I learned many things from reading it. I am sharing it here again in the event that other people may read it and may learn many things from it, as well about this election, Romney, candidates and God:

    “CAN A CHRISTIAN VOTE FOR A NON-CHRISTIAN CANDIDATE?”

    Rebecca Hagelin
    Sept. 13, 2012

    “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

    – 1Timothy 2:1-2

    It is clear from the Apostle Paul’s writing that we are to pray for all leaders in government, including those who may not be Christians. But can we vote for them?

    Theologian Wayne Grudem writes in Politics According to the Bible, “Christians should support the candidates who best represent moral and political values consistent with biblical teaching, no matter what his or her religious background or convictions.”

    There are many biblical examples of God bringing non-believers to work alongside His people to further His purpose:

    – Genesis 41:37-57 – God used Pharaoh to establish Joseph in a position of authority in Egypt.

    – 1 Kings 5:1-12 – Hiram, King of Tyre helped Solomon build the Temple.

    • Daniel 2:46-49 – Nebuchadnezzar placed Daniel and his Jewish friends in positions of high authority in Babylon.

    – Isaiah 45:16 – Cyrus, King of Persia, restored the Jewish exiles to Israel.

    – Isaiah 45:16 – Cyrus, King of Persia, restored the Jewish exiles to Israel.

    This working together with non-believers is called co-belligerence. Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer writes, “A co-belligerent is a person with whom I do not agree on all sorts of vital issues, but who, for whatever reasons of their own, is on the same side in a fight for some specific issue of public justice.”

    There are many other examples of co-belligerence. William Wilberforce joined with non-believers to abolish the slave trade in England. Our country’s Christian Founding Fathers joined with their non- Christian counterparts, men like Jefferson and Franklin, to establish the foundations of a new nation.

    There will be times that God calls us to engage in co-belligerence for the furtherance of His Kingdom. We may be required to vote for a non-Christian to help us accomplish God’s design for our time.

    Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary writes: “We must be honest and acknowledge that there are non-Christians or non-evangelicals who share far more of our worldview and policy concerns than some others who identify as Christians.

    The stewardship of our vote demands that we support those candidates who most clearly and consistently share our worldview and combine these commitments with the competence to serve both faithfully and well.”

    Theologian Dr. John Frame writes in Doctrine of the Christine Life: “…in some cultures (like the ancient Roman, in which the New Testament was written) there is not much that Christians can do, other than pray, to influence political structures and policies. But when they can influence them, they should. In modern democracies, all citizens are ‘lesser magistrates’ by virtue of the ballot box.

    Christians have an obligation to vote according to God’s standards. And, as they are gifted and called, they should influence others to vote in the same way.”

    Christians need to vote responsibly. We have an obligation to be informed about issues and candidates, and then vote for those whose stances most closely align with biblical principles.

    As voters, we share the responsibility of government and thus share accountability to God for what takes place in our nation. And yes, this may mean that at times we need to vote for a non-Christian, whether it’s a national, state or local race.

    There are many Christian brothers and sisters who feel anxiety about whether or not they should support Mitt Romney given that he is a Mormon. While I share their belief that Mormonism is not a Christian faith, biblical teachings reveal that I am to be civically responsible, and in America, that includes voting.

    Regular readers of my column know that Governor Romney was not my first choice for president. But the fact is, one of only two men will be the next President of the United States: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

    Obama’s own record as a senator and now president reveals a man who believes in doctrines that are decidedly antithetical to Christianity and basic conservative morality. And a new documentary, 2016: Obama’s America (which I have recently seen and am now helping to promote) makes it crystal clear that Obama is also working to remake America into something very different than what our Framers designed when they wrote the Constitution.

    Romney, while far from perfect, has got to win this election if we are going to have any hope of preserving biblical morality or the American dream. I never look for the best Christian to be President – I look for the one who best reflects a strong moral character, and who is most likely to preserve my rights as a Christian and freedom-loving American.”

    See The Entire Article Here:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2012/09/13/can_a_christian_vote_for_a_nonchristian_candidate/page/full/

    Rebecca Hagelin’s Archives: http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Mia,

    There are very many informative links for many videos and articles here that I highly recommend you look at as well:

    https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/obama-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah-obama-worn-ring-for-30-years-shahada-first-part-of-islamic-declaration-of-faith-obama-not-christian/#comments

  23. Interested Bystander

    SueQ,

    Wouldn’t miss it I don’t think.

    I can’t believe it’s on so late, but a little less sleep is worth it.

    Mia,

    If I may:

    I believe that me and you agree on most things. I, (like you come across) can NOT vote for Romney, and it looks like Gary Johnson will be my choice, but allow me just a minute.

    Your and my view is not welcome here. It’s a “hey we have to get Romney elected because he’s not Obama”, mentality in this blog.

    I pretty much just read the comments given, and read most articles (which are BOTH top notch by the way), and keep my view to myself.

    It’ll next be suggested to you that a vote for anyone but Romney, is a vote for Obama, not that they “mean” anything offensive about it, it’s just that in the view of the majority here, there are only two people running for the Presidency, or at least that there’s only two candidates that have a chance of winning.

    As I have stated many times on this blog and elsewhere, I don’t vote for a “winner” or a “loser”, as Tina does, I vote for the BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE JOB. I could care less whether they win or not, I know that I have researched and am an informed voter. NOT just on the candidates, but what is in the Constitution and how that affects the stance of EVERY candidate.

    Just quickly and then I won’t comment for a few days, but I watched the debate last night for the Indiana Senate Seat that Richard Mourdock beat Lugar for in the Primary in May.

    I voted for Mourdock, but listening to the debate last night. the LIBERTARIAN candidate said everything I feel, and I will be voting for him in November.

    He’s the BEST candidate for the job.

    His name is Andrew Horning, and I liked what I heard from him.

    Oldsailor, if you are staying in Indiana, please take a look at Mr Horning.

  24. IB & anyone else questioning Romney.
    Plain & simple, this is not about the merits of non Obama candidates but about saving this country.
    Romney is the only chance that we have.
    If you vote for someone else or do not vote, you are voting for Obama.

  25. You cannot be a Christian & support Obama’s policies & actions!

  26. Wow! Great comments everyone — thank you sooo much. I especially appreciate the links. I thought I’d just check in “real quick” before I start dinner… but now I see I need to do some more reading, and I will respond again later. Might actually be better anyway, giving me a little time to think and ponder before replying 🙂

  27. CW — I apologize for not responding sooner. You asked me:

    “So, Mia, what are you saying?
    Allow Obama to stay in office?
    By any rational standard of decision making that would be foolish & destructive.”

    First, if I had the power to not “allow” Obama to stay in office, I would have had the power to keep him out in the first place. It was foolish and destructive to let him in to begin with. But more to the point, from where I’m sitting, it may be just as foolish and destructive to “allow” Romney to take the office, just as it was foolish and destructive to “allow” Romney to steal the nomination — from the crap that went on at the primaries and caucuses to the rules changes rammed thru at the convention. Romney used the same strategy Obama used to steal the nomination from Hillary — straight from Alinsky.

    For some reason, that’s okay with you. It’s not okay with me. You are convinced Romney will be better than Obama. I’m not. And at this point, I’m worried that if Romney does “win,” that Republicans will become complacent, and before we know it, Romney will finish the job Obama has started. Bottom line: Neither of us KNOWS what is in Romney’s heart. I guess we’ll find out together.

  28. Mia.
    No brainer.
    Obama must go. Romney can beat him.
    Romney is a good man.
    He is also successful in the real world.
    Anyone who works against Romney to allow Obama to stay in is my enemy.
    Clear?

  29. CabbyAZ — Thank you for your “gentle and kindly” reply. I sensed no offense in your words, and I take none.

    I understand the value and strength of teamwork. I understand that Romney is the only candidate (now) that can remove the Marxist SOB squatting in our White House. What I do not yet believe, and therefore do not accept, is that Romney will be any better. I can list a dozen “deal-breaker” positions Romney has taken. I mentioned indefinite citizen detention without due process before. How is this any better than Obama? How is this any less dictatorial?

    You mentioned military service. I have not served either. But I do come from a military family. I have lost count of the number of friends and family members who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, many more than once, a few who came home injured and disabled. And, in past conflicts, family members who never came home — from Vietnam back to the Revolution. They faced bullets; I face only words (so far). My dad would be rolling in his grave if I didn’t have the integrity or the courage to fight for this country on the level I can. The overwhelming majority of my military friends and family oppose Romney on a visceral level.

    My red-white-and-blue conscience demands I honor those who have and continue to put themselves in harm’s way for our country. All I want is what is best for our country and her people.

  30. Yes, CW, I’ve got it loud and clear, and it’s heart wrenching. I once had so much respect for you and considered you a hero. But now you’ve pledged your fealty to Romney, not to freedom, liberty and the American Way, and if I don’t put on the jackboots and march to your totalitarian drum, I am the enemy. And you, alone, with these words, have convinced me to vote Gary Johnson. God have mercy on your soul. And God help the rest of us.

  31. Sue — Nope. No questions. You expressed yourself very clearly, and I will respect your aversion to hearing any other thoughts or opinions than your own.

  32. ProtectOurCivilRights — Thank you for the excellent article. There was much to ponder in the article, and I intend to read it again. I’ve already shared it with family members who are concerned about Romney’s roots. That’s never been my issue tho. My issues are with our rights and freedoms — freedom of worship just being one of many.

  33. Mia, damn it, you still don’t get it.
    Personalities be damned as well.
    It’s about the country, constitution & rule of law & preserving it.
    If you vote for Gary Johnson under these emergency conditions you are a damned fool & un American.

  34. InterestedBystander — A kindred spirit! Your words were prophetic — as CW has indeed declared me the “enemy.” So be it. I had promised friends to keep an open mind and give Romney the opportunity to prove himself. He has not. And, like you, I refuse to allow myself to be bullied into voting for anyone. Thankfully, CW declaring me the “enemy” has confirmed what I knew all along… Indefinite detention anyone? Assassination? One way or another, we’re going to have another totalitarian in the White House, and our battle lines are being drawn. Will we fight for freedom, liberty and the American Way… or cower before the tyrants? I will fight for all that’s good and holy. God bless us one and all — we need it more than ever.

  35. CW, I will not fight with you. I am fighting for country, Constitution and freedom… I will not fight for our current “rule of law” much less for “preserving” it. If I’m wrong about Romney, I will make a public apology on your page and beg your forgiveness. But if I’m right, I will look forward to you fighting by my side. Fair enough?

  36. CW — Out of respect for your readers, please let folks know I did respond here. They took the time to address me, and I do not want them to think I just blew them off. I won’t darken your doorway again unless and until invited.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s