When President Obama is re-elected!!

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:43 am

JScott:
"Actually, Jim, that ad did come from the Obama campaign. It features Lisa Dunham from HBO Girls fame."

JimHow:

"I thought she did that on her own.
It says Obama approves the video at the end?
Ballzy! Obama is trying to get the base out."

Goodness! How about something like:

I thought she did that on her own.
It says Obama approves the video at the end?
Wow that's low. I'm shocked.
Maybe some of that stuff all those crazies say on
"Fox News and conservative talk radio", you know, those folks who "dominate the airwaves" (chuckle),
might be true?
...gee, I wonder if he lets his daughters listen to his ads?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:05 am

OK I found the ad. I'm having a really hard time taking this outrage seriously. Degrading to women? Really??? I guess there is room for various different interpretations, but the way I see it, the entire concept that a women should CHOOSE what she does with her body and her mind, whether it's choosing who to have sex with or who to vote for, is a POSITIVE women's theme. And a Democratic theme. It's not degrading. It's actually pretty clever and touches on a range of women's issues where Obama and Romney have significant differences. I guess any straw is worth grasping in such a tight race. This just makes the far right look even more out of touch with women - the lack of sensitivity, the prudish over-reaction, the apparent unwillingness to beleive that a lot of women (gasp!) have sex before marriage, always have and always will, with or without this ad. There's a lot more degrading stuff on primetime TV every day of the week. Oh well, I'm not surprised.

I think Jim is right that this type of ad is designed to motivate those who say they'd vote Obama on a phone poll to the point where they would actually get out and vote. It's not designed to change the minds of those who've already sided with Romney.

Also, the clip I found online did not have the "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message" tagline. I'm not sure what that means given that I was viewing a YouTube clip. Frankly, I'd admire the Obama campaign if they did put it out, but given the evident edginess, it would make sense if it didn't come directly from his campaign.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:49 am

Now that I've voted I'm above the fray.
My die is cast.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:01 pm

David, to be accurate, the clip I saw was not on air and also had the "approved this message" business cropped, but did have the Obama campaign logo at the end right before the edit. It is also being reported that it came from the campaign and they don't seem to be denying it.

Regardless, to your point and Jim's, this is very much directed at the base, and I think specifically the youth vote, MTV crowd. It may be effective in that regard. It will not play well with most others. I don't know where all they're airing it, but I can tell you that the reaction from most women here is not at all positive, regardless of political leaning, nearly universally. Some of this sentiment you see as far right is really majority, mainstream point of view. Far from being seen as positive for women's issues, even most Obama supporters here are embarrassed by the ad and semi-apologetic about it. No offense intended, but I think those on the coast are predominantly very liberal and sometimes you get used to the idea that some of these opinions are majority. They are not. Where I sit, it is a dead even split between conservatives and liberals. Even the notion that Obama is the clear mantle bearer for women is not a given here. Remember, for example, polling still consistently shows a majority oppose abortion in this country, and actually recently that number has been rising slightly.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:31 pm

I have no doubt this bothers the Republicans, tmas, because they are very insecure about sex.
To me it is just a silly little ad designed to appeal to the MTV crowd, to try to get out the youth vote.
I'm sure to the Fox crowd it is the end of civilization as we know it.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:56 pm

I'm going to move the Obama JHEPI down to 55.
These margins are awfully close for him, these 2-3 point margins in IA, OH, WI, etc.
That 3-4 point deficit in the national polling is at the very edge of getting out of control for him.
We'll see if he can hold on!

Right now I give Obama NH, NV, OH, IA, WI among the swing states.
I give Romney CO, VA, FL, NC.

That leaves the Electoral College at:

Barack Hussein Obama: 281

Willard Mitt Romney: 257

But that can VERY easily flip in the final week!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:59 pm

The Obama campaign is a little Belichickian to me. they are not afraid to think outside the box a little bit. Thus the Lisa Dunham ad, etc. It will be fascinating to autopsy this race after the election. Who made the right decisions, who made the wrong ones, etc.!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:59 pm

....and on cue, just to make the handicapping that much more difficult, Hurricane Sandy moves up the eastern seaboard. Potential power outages and disruptions may or may not linger into election day, but will certainly interrupt the final week of prep and early voting. In most areas it seems unlikely to make a difference in the electoral count, but there's North Carolina, Virginia and possibly even Pennsylvania. Curiouser and curiouser.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:03 pm

Was just thinking the same thing.
Crazy.
I have a big two day suppression hearing starting tomorrow in a double manslaughter case, with a bunch of doctors, nurses, expert toxicologists, people coming from out of state, the judge has been sick, etc. Just as the storm is coming into Maine. Nothing is easy!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:08 pm

No offense taken and I'm sure you are right, Scott, that a lot of mainstream America sees this ad as tawdry - especially those with children or if all they saw was the reaction and not the ad itself. I was surprised at how mild the ad was when I actually saw it, especially after seeing the right wing outcry. My reaction was my own and I'm happy to share it here among friends but you wont see me posting it on Twitter or calling CSPAN or writing to the papers about it. I have no illusions about the mainstream leanings of the US population - very faith-oriented, very protective of their kids. Nothing wrong with that at all, and further I can respect that a lot of folks find the tone of the ad disturbing. Demeaning to women? Not buying that line. The disturbing part of the reaction that I meant to refer to is the need to publicly decry anyone who feels differently, the need to create a public outcry and to deny that a lot of what was expressed in the ad is legitimate.

What's scary to me about the increasing number of people opposed to abortion is that a significant number of them feel that their beliefs give them power to impose their will on what other people do with their bodies. If someone doesn't believe that a fetus is imbued with rights, but they are forced to carry it to term because the majority believes it is imbued with rights, that is tyranny of the same type, though not the same degree, enforced on women in countries we consider barbaric. It's not close to the most important issue in the election for me personally, but the possibility that a Republican administration would move the Supreme Court in a direction that would make abortion illegal is anathema to me.

As to the real purpose of the ad, I think we agree that it was designed to motivate the Democratic base, not to convert any Republican-leaning voters.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:28 pm

Hear you, David. Regarding the abortion issue, the debate is when life begins. For those who believe it starts at conception, individual rights is not a compelling argument, any more than it would be for someone to say that their infant requires too much of their time, that such restriction on their time and effort is unreasonable and therefore neglect of a newborn is simply an exercise of individual freedom. To play devil's advocate, if the majority of the population takes this view, asking them not only to condone what they see as murder and immoral, but to use their tax dollars against their wishes to facilitate it, would be outrageous and thus the very strong sentiment.

It's interesting to note that many other western countries have laws more restrictive than ours. Some outlaw the procedure at viability, which makes sense to me. None condone partial birth abortion. My view is that there is ample time in the first four or five months to make this decision, and it becomes increasingly harder to justify when science tells us that the fetus is potentially independently viable. I frankly find partial birth abortion completely indefensible. For the reason outlined above, I also believe that the procedure should be legal, left to the individual, but not supported by public funds.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:43 pm

How many partial birth abortions were performed in the US last year?
How many were performed for birth control purposes?
On those incredibly rare occasions that they are performed, it is usually for the health of the mother. no?
I support Medicaid funding of abortion, I think poor women should have equal access to health care as rich women.
As for abortion only during viability, I've always thought Roe was an intellectually dishonest decision, one minute abortion is okay, the next minute it is not. Abortion is the termination of life, I just come down in the end with the right of the woman to make decisions about her own body.
In my criminal practice I deal with people every day who don't have $4 to their name, don't know where their next meal is coming from. I'm sure many would struggle to come up with the cash in 3 months.
And I definitely don't think a woman impregnated by rape should be required to give birth.
And who decides if the woman has been raped?
And when?
After a trial 10 months later?
After the appeal of a conviction 2 years later?
Roe is a rational resolution of the problem, even though the reasoning of the court was flawed.
There will be both state AND federal bans of ALL abortions if the Republican Party, governed by its radical right, ever gains control of both the presidency and the senate.
The US Supreme Court balance of power is one of my biggest concerns, if not the biggest, in this election.
Strangely, it has gotten like no attention in this race.
The Paul Ryan/Todd Aikins movement will dominate for a generation.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:48 pm

I'm willing to stipulate from a scientific perspective that life begins at conception, but I personally reject the notion that the fertilized egg has rights or that it is somehow immoral or unethical to terminate a pregnancy at an early stage. God-given rights are faith-based. The claim that a fetus is a person and therefore has rights is faith-based. I have no objection to a religious definition of the sanctity of human life beginning at conception, and I respect individuals who adhere to that definition. I do have a problem with that faith-based definition being applied to the state-based definition and by extension to others who do not share that faith. This is not where the debate is happening, because it would be an instant loss for the pro-choice crowd. Instead they are slowly losing the argument over where life begins.

Scott, like you, for me there is no easy answer to the question of when abortion becomes indefensible. I think we are pretty close in our personal feelings about this, though I can conceive of circumstances where a partial birth abortion to save the life of the mother might be justifiable. Our form of government is necessarily messy. Sometimes tax dollars have to be spent for things that are distasteful, outrageous, immoral or unethical to significant portions of the population. Given the intensity of the feelings and beliefs surrrounding abortion, I can understand the desire to eliminate tax dollar support for it. But one measure of a great civilization is the tolerance of the majority for minority opinion. Understandably, this is a tough one. But Romney and the Republicans go further than the economic question: they would make abortion entirely illegal if they had their 'druthers.

To take this down a notch and back away from the hot-button abortion issue, Romney also wants to take away coverage for birth control. I don't think you'll find a majority of Americans believing that contraception interferes with individual rights.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:57 pm

Abortion: is it possible to turn the clock back on this?

Where do states' rights come into play here? I'm sorry, I just don't know whose laws trump whose, or what the Supreme Court has said.

JScott, you wrote that "It's interesting to note that many other western countries have laws more restrictive than ours". I'm not contesting, just wondering. Which are they?
I see your point entirely about the first paragraph in your post, although you do not seem to state your own position.

FWIW, I see this as a necessary evil. It is true that the weakest point in the pro-choice stance is the arbitrary dividing line at which the government says that a fetus is a living human being. It is also ironic to subsidise the elimination of future citizens.
That having been said, I think that women should have the right.

All the best,
Alex R.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:18 pm

Obama picked up a point today in Gallup, now up by a point nationally among registered voters, down by 4 among likely voters. Every day now is incredibly critical as the undecideds decide.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:41 pm

Great and thoughtful discussion, fellas. Regarding partial birth abortion, the fact that it is a rarely used procedure actually makes it easier to argue that it could easily be eliminated. As someone with a background in medicine, I am unaware of any conceivable circumstance where it would be necessary to save the mother's life. In fact, in every scenario I can envision, it would distract attention from the mother while the procedure is being performed. Maybe I haven't thought of it, but as much as this argument has been proposed as justification, I've never heard of one, and until I do I can't see a defense of it. The infant is literally a moment away from legal rights.

Regarding the finances as you outline, Jim, I am sympathetic to the plight of poor women who would make this choice. There are ample avenues for private funding for these women which could obviate the need to force those who find it morally repugnant to pay for it. My own view is not to outlaw the procedure, but to permit it only until viability, which is currently about four or five months, without regards to justification (i.e. rape or no) so there would be no need for some court order or whatever. I should also say here that the hardship cases are always the ones discussed; when I was an intern, the vast majority of abortions were performed as a form of birth control. I clearly recall one woman in her late 30's who was coming in for her twelfth. No law is without consequences, and I think you get more of what you ask for. I fully admit that my proposal would do nothing in this regard.

I'm not as certain that Republicans would ban abortion outright. I could envision a movement to make it a state's rights issue, though. There would clearly be states that would ban it outright.

David, I think this particular issue is more than simply a majority tolerating a minority opinion. It is, for them, not only tolerating but being forced to fund what they consider to be murder. It is a red line issue. Regarding Romney and birth control, I think you are mis-stating his position slightly. There is a difference between outlawing coverage and permitting those who prefer not to cover it to be exempted from doing so. Again, I happen to agree with that position. I simply don't agree with coercing people to fund something they object to morally where it is possible to avoid it.

Alex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_l ... pean_Union You can certainly reference the article, but here's a pull quote: "Abortion is legal in nearly every European country although there is a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted.[9] Although nearly every European country makes abortion available on demand during the first trimester, when it comes to later-term abortions, there are very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States.[10] Restrictions on abortion are most stringent in countries that are more strongly observant of the Catholic faith.[9]"

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:45 pm

Let me say before I forget, all of you BWE'ers on the coast, heads down and be safe!!

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:26 pm

"For the first time in 40 years, Iowa's largest and most influential newspaper is backing a Republican for president.

Romney's endorsement is the first for a Republican by the Register since Richard Nixon in 1972."

It's an interesting read. Not familiar with this paper though, probably some ultra conservative rag...ouch! excuse me while I pry my tongue from my cheek.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:34 pm

JScott wrote:Let me say before I forget, all of you BWE'ers on the coast, heads down and be safe!!

I'll second that.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:51 am

Scott, I can live with a compromise on not paying for abortion if it is legal under the circumstances you cite. Can't see outlawing it entirely. I do think the Republicans would overturn Roe in a heartbeat if they had the means. The contraceptive issue is another story - should be covered by insurance. Period. I don't think Romney stands for that. He would allow certain groups to eliminate coverage for contraceptives because of religious objections. Catholic hospitals who self insure - gotta cover it or give up your tax exemption IMO.

Just starting to get a little rain and wind here now. Should be worse tomorrow and peak tomorrow night and Tuesday. Predictions call for landfall north of us but it's a wide enough storm that things will get pretty interesting around here. Thanks for the supportive thoughts.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:22 am

Yup, I've been told not to go to work tomorrow, pretty much as a result of the Metro system having already announced they're not running tomorrow.

Post Katrina, it seems difficult for any government or quasi-gubmint agency to do anything but curl up in a ball when facing any kind of emergency. Of course, the next phase of liability is when people can't get to emergency services because all public services have shut down. Is this a great country or what?

How many red herrings must we go through before we wrap back around to the reason Bill Clinton unseated Bush I - "It's the economy, stupid!" The polarization on both sides has gotten so absurd that an unfathomable number of folks would vote for a goat or a cardboard cutout of a candidate if their party told them to do so.

Here in Maryland, I could vote for or against my best interests, whatever they may be, and it would make not one iota difference in the outcome regarding where our state's electoral votes go. Is this a great country or what?

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:30 am

If Sandy doesn't cause a catastrophe, there's gonna be some splaining to do to a cynical media. And if it does, someone will have to explain why this could just happen. I wish I was a media elite. It's like swinging cats at a barrel. You just can't lose.

I mean, Irene actually was a disaster, but because it did not cause a holocausticapocalypse people went ape.

Elsewhere, it took just over a week for my wife to experience her first tsunami warning. Nothing came of it but she said Honolulu was paralyzed with evacuation traffic.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:03 am

Hey, as long as the power holds out, it'll give me a chance to call Napa wineries about our trip, so it's all good.

Plus, no tsunami warnings in these parts so it can't be all that bad...

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:01 pm

" I simply don't agree with coercing people to fund something they object to morally where it is possible to avoid it."

I object morally to state murder, aka capital punishment. Should I be able to withhold from my taxes to avoid paying for it?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:42 pm

To paraphrase Herbert Morrison: "Ohh, the hypocrisy..."

Let's see Stefan, with the high execution rate in Texas, I would estimate a state tax savings of about 25%? But then there is no state income tax in Texas...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:49 pm

Obama drops a point in today's Gallup.
Down by a point in Fla.
JHEPI: 50.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:29 pm

Although he gained one point in Rasmussen, now trailing 49-47.
I'll leave the JHEPI at 50.
Getting close to the final prediction on the Electoral College!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:32 am

stefan wrote:" I simply don't agree with coercing people to fund something they object to morally where it is possible to avoid it."

I object morally to state murder, aka capital punishment. Should I be able to withhold from my taxes to avoid paying for it?

Yes.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:38 am

stefan wrote:" I simply don't agree with coercing people to fund something they object to morally where it is possible to avoid it."

I object morally to state murder, aka capital punishment. Should I be able to withhold from my taxes to avoid paying for it?

It's a flawed analogy, of course, in about five different ways, but I am quite serious in sympathizing with that point of view.

Since we're going astray, I will also add that I find myself dumbfounded that "right to life" advocates would bomb clinics, murder doctors, or support capital punishment. Crazy world, no?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:58 am

Agree (with both Scott and Stefan). Though I think it's too easy, and incorrect, to lump all the right to life advocates in with the bombers and the murderers. Kind of like lumping all Muslims in with the bombers and murderers.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:03 am

On the other hand, David, I see little difference between the right to life bombers and the Muslim bombers. Far right meets far left.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:05 am

Of course, David, you are absolutely correct. Didn't mean to imply anything else. The bombers and shooters are the fringe of the fringe. I'm just flabbergasted at the thought process. When you're so devoted to the sanctity of life that you feel the need to take action and you find yourself strapping on your bomb backpack or packing up the rifle, what, exactly, is going through your head at that moment??? Bizarre.....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:10 am

Getting close to that time for the ultimate bellwether question:

As someone who resides on the Ohio street that is ultimately going to decide the presidency,

Who are you going to vote for in the presidential race, JScott?

(I need to factor it in as I calculate my final JHEPIs.)

On a side note:

What is your take on this Jeep ad war in OH?

hautbrionlover · Post by **hautbrionlover** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:42 am

While I still think that it's likely that whoever wins Ohio will win the election, it occurs to me that there are other possibilities. I expect Obama to win PA, WI, NV, MI and MN. He also has a good chance of winning NH and Iowa. If he wins those states, he could break the 270 mark if he wins Colorado (distinctly possible) or Virginia (possible, but harder than CO), in which case he wouldn't need Ohio.
Still, this is one tight election. It's the third time in the last four elections that we'll head into Election Day with anything being possible (2008 being the exception).

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:52 am

Watch Nevada on election night.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:32 pm

Not good for Barry

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/30/romn ... n-victory/

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:49 pm

The only poll that matters is a week away!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:46 pm

Jim, I don't think the Jeep ad is causing that much of a stir here. The coal issue is MUCH bigger, especially upstate. If Brown loses, it will be because of that. His challenger looks like he's 15.

Personally, I am not completely thrilled with anyone this year. There are issues with both that concern me greatly, and I find myself deciding which basket of flaws is the most acceptable, rather than being really jazzed about pulling the lever for someone. It's a lot less fun to vote that way!

Honestly, especially as a veteran, this Benghazi thing really, really bothers me. There were two incredibly brave guys who heard screams from that consul, defied orders and risked their own lives to save those still there, and then sat on the roof, the two of them, holding off 150 militants with RPG's and mortars. They painted a target with laser, expecting air support that never came. They asked for help repeatedly and someone decided it was too risky, too uncertain, decided to let them die. Someone should have stuck their neck out for those guys, and the ambassador himself. They should never have been there if we weren't willing to support them. What do we tell today's Seals in training? Don't worry, we've got your back? This is a very big deal in the military. I don't know who was ultimately responsible for what, but until there is clarity the buck stops at the top. Everyone has their hot button, but I have a week to decide what to do with that. Among many, many other things........

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:18 pm

Interesting that that is a hot button for you, Scott. I've never served in the military but I'm finding it hard to blame any president for the deaths of four US citizens in a world of eight billion crazy people, with dangerous people around in the millions who want to kill every one of us, every minute of every day. We have a military with hundreds of thousands of service members all around the world, with military weapons costing trillions, with many lives lost in combat, with people who want to kill any American, civilian or milirary, wherever they may be, and we are going to hold a president accountable because, after four years in office, four of our citizens were killed in one of the most dangerous parts of the world? I mean, with all of this gross militarism, isn't it inevitable, regardless of who is president, that eventually some are going to be killed? I'm sure if we researched it we could go back through every single administration back to Washington and find examples of Americans who were killed unnecessarily and whose deaths, looking back in hindsight, could have been avoided. Myself I just don't get it, but I certainly agree that there are issues that influence some people more than others, it's what makes the world go around.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:40 pm

Jim, all of what you say is true. Everyone in the military knows that part of the job is placing yourself in a position where you can be killed. The issue isn't that four people got killed on duty; sadly, that happens to many, many more with unacceptable regularity. Many more have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq for years. And I'm sure we can go back and find bad decisions about deployments and strategies every administration and every war in where people died needlessly. The issue is that, contrary to the code all the military lives and works by, they were abandoned. They could easily have abandoned the rest of the people in that consulate - in fact, they were ordered to do so (this is itself disturbing). One of the most central tenants of the military has always been that you never, ever leave a soldier behind. That just doesn't happen and that's what makes this case unique and particularly egregious. And frankly, in this case, it would've been very easy to support them. A single aircraft that was in the region could've been deployed in under an hour that would've been capable of dispersing the militants.

In fact, it gets a bit worse. The fact is that standard protocol is that, absent orders to the contrary, when that kind of call goes out, the EXTREMIS unit is automatically scrambled and sent. It requires specific orders to the contrary to call it off. In other words, this did not require someone to figure out whom to send and when, it required someone - and no one seems to be stepping forward - to specifically give the order to abandon, not the other way around. The nature of the call required by protocol that it be immediately transmitted to the highest levels in the situation room. I'm not saying the president made that call, but frankly he would've been in the loop personally, in real time, by protocol.