ACORN’s field office in Fields Corner was allegedly burglarized on October 16. The organizer for ACORN, Massachusetts, Noemi "Mimi" Ramos, suggested that there was a partisan “break-in” citing the national backlash against ACORN. Why would anyone in Massachusetts suspect voter fraud? The state is considered “safe” for Obama and John Kerry (who brought Obama to the national spotlight in 2004, selecting him as the keynote speaker for the DNC convention), polling taken in September shows Obama and Kerry with comfortable leads, and Massachusetts always votes Democrat – therein lies the rub – almost. Massachusetts is heavily Independent (over 50% of the states electorate), with Democrats and Republicans, Green Party and others making up the balance. Additionally, fraud in Massachusetts, or shenanigans, if you will, is generally expected (the Bulger brothers and Former Speaker of the House Finneran), from the Turnpike to the Big Dig, corruption has been the norm on Beacon Hill. Suspects in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco hail from Massachusetts: Barney Frank and John Kerry, hail from the Bay State. That said, John McCain is popular in Massachusetts, the state has given its electoral votes twice in recent history to a Republican (Reagan), and the last election in 2004, showed a fairly significant amount of “red” by county – this might raise the stakes a bit – but would it be enough for ACORN to take a significant role in “getting out the vote for Obama”?
The Obama campaign has only one office in Massachusetts, in Boston, while the McCain campaign, has offices across the state, including Western Massachusetts, the McCain campaign is active in Massachusetts, a state that is known (at least by Conservatives), as an Independent State – and Independent voters in Massachusetts have always like McCain. Add to that the fact that Massachusetts has 12 electoral votes up for grabs, and it would not surprise anyone here,if ACORN were to take an active role in “getting out the vote” for Obama. Both Candidates are actively campaign in New Hampshire where the electoral vote count is 4; Obama is drawing crowds of approximately 6,000 to 8,000 while Sarah Palin is drawing crowds of 6,000. The fact that the bottom of the ticket is drawing crowds equal to the top of the other ticket should be a clear indication that all of New England, including Massachusetts and New Hampshire, are not exactly “SAFE” for the Democrats.
Who would it better serve to abscond with three ACORN computers? If ACORN fraud is rampant in 14 states now, why would ACORN want laptops absconded by a federal investigator? Although Ms. Ramos insists that ACORN has only registered 700 voters in Massachusetts, the “non-profit” is not necessarily known for its accuracy, and laptops would contain emails from ACORN headquarters and possibly a campaign that spent $800,000 on ACORN to “get-out-the-vote”. What better way to destroy evidence than by “burglarizing the office” and pointing a finger at the “opposition”.
Additionally, multiple emails sent to Secretary of State Galvin’s office asking what the Bay State is doing to protect against voter fraud have gone unanswered. Galvin, like Brunner in Ohio, is a Democrat – and as Brunner has just successfully“stolen” electoral votes of Ohio for Obama; one has to be a bit suspicious in any state where the Secretary of State has a vested interest in his or hers party’s nominee; especially with an Active ACORN office in the state. Brunner admitted that 200,000 registrants are problematic (i.e. fraudulent), yet will not release the lists to the county election boards in order to insure that these 200,000 votes are certified one way or the other. Although an an FBI investigation is ongoing in several states, specifically Ohio, the focus is on ACORN and there is little time to rectify the situation. The FBI should be investigating every single aspect of voter registration, from certifying votes cast early in Ohio and ACORN as well as office of the Secretary of State.
ACORN has much riding on this, and a good reason to make sure that certain individuals in key states are protected. Among the Massachusetts politician’s up for re-election is Barney Frank, who has already put up a fight for ACORN on the hill. Frank pushed millions of dollars at ACORN in the July bailout. Therefore, it is not a stretch that ACORN would help Frank to maintain his seat. Frank, who has lost popularity from both Democrat and Republican constituents over his support of the Bailout bill as well as his deep ties to Freddie and Fannie, is running against Earl Sholley, Republican. John Kerry, another ACORN supporter is also up for re-election, running against republican Jeff Beatty. Further, Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts and lender of speeches to Barack Obama, also has ties to ACORN and the whole Shady Lending Business (Boston Globe) Burglary – may be a stretch of the imagination.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Déjà vu – Presidential Debates 2004 and 2008 – Polls Eerily Similar
CNN McCain-Obama post debate coverage places one in a time-warp of sorts – the statistics on which candidate won the debate are strangely similar to those given following the 2004 Kerry-Bush debate. “Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said Democratic candidate Obama did the best job in the debate, with 31 percent saying Republican Sen. John McCain performed best.” (CNN) Contrast this from last night to reports following the 2004 Debate found at Bloomberg.com
“CBS said its poll of uncommitted voters found 39 percent said Kerry performed better, 25 percent picked Bush and 36 percent called the results a tie. CNN said Kerry won by 52 percent to 39 percent. The poll for CNN and USA Today by the Gallup Organization surveyed 511 registered voters and had a 5 percentage point margin for error. “ (Bloomberg)
There was a good deal of punditry after each debate between the two candidates, and in each instance, Kerry was found to be more “presidential” than the incumbent George Bush. Further, Kerry was also more “in touch” with the middle class. Go figure.
The CNN, New York Times, CBS and DNC game plan has not changed a great deal over the past 4 years, apparently so little that they could virtually recycle articles, plugging in Obama for Kerry.
Herein lies the problem with an attempt to sway the “court of public opinion”, it did not work in 2004, and it is unlikely to work in 2008. The reason is clear; the electorate has not changed a great deal in four years. It was supposed to be the “Year of the Democrat” (again all pundits are still pointing to this as the reason that Obama will win – along with these nifty post-debate polls), however, the reasons for it being the year of the Democrat appear to change with current events. First it was the Iraq War – Obama would win due to the dismal failure in Iraq. Since that did not work out quite so well for the Press and or the Obama Campaign, they had to focus on the Economy. Apparently, Democrats do well in Economic downturns. 2004 Political Economic Forecast: ” In 1992, Bill Clinton famously ascended to the presidency with an unofficial campaign slogan: It's the economy, stupid. Now, Americans weary of war and wary of terrorism face an election in which the economy -- by far the most important domestic issue -- largely has been kept on the sidelines. The economy is President Bush's most significant domestic weakness, and it has the potential to be Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's greatest strength.”
There are virtually no significant differences in the rhetoric used by the media and the campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Most voters have had their minds made up; and those that are being touted as “Independent voters” lean towards one party or the other. According to there has been virtually no change in the electorate in the last 3 election cycles (including 2008). Therefore, the race will be close; despite an apparent edge in the polls given to Obama, McCain, like Bush (here is where the resemblance ends), will, if these statistics hold true (and they should) be elected President on Nov. 4th.
2008 Conservative Feminist Debate Analysis: While Obama gets definite points for being a smooth talker, he lacks substance in most areas, and went on the attack more often than McCain (but did so seamlessly), also, McCain did not have the benefit of feeding talking points to the media preceding the debate (From Drudge Report email released to media pre-date: from: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:37:27 -0500 From: Sean Smith [s***mith@barackobama.com] Obama made several misstatements during the debate, specifically regarding his position in the Illinois Senate on Abortion and his continued denial of voting for tax cuts on those making $43,000 per year. McCain, on his part, did bring up Bill Ayers, as well as ACORN and the fact that the Obama campaign paid $800,000 to that organization in order to get out the vote – he also appeared tired, after a hard day on the campaign trail. He should have gone farther on several points, following up when Obama denied something patently false – instead, McCain gave Obama a pass, more civil. Obama won the debate based on his looks and his eloquence, and McCain won based on substance. Will this debate be enough to change minds? – Not likely. The independents do factor into the general election, but to the same degree they factored in 2004.
A Note: Should the military absentee ballots be included in this election (unlike 2004), the 68% of the military polled (assuming that polling is correct), that support McCain, and those that support Obama, should have their vote counted. With an election this close and with ACORN driven fraud prevalent in all swing states, waiting to count the vote of our Military should be a priority. Depending upon the state where the absentee ballot is cast, it could swing the Electoral College for either candidate.
“CBS said its poll of uncommitted voters found 39 percent said Kerry performed better, 25 percent picked Bush and 36 percent called the results a tie. CNN said Kerry won by 52 percent to 39 percent. The poll for CNN and USA Today by the Gallup Organization surveyed 511 registered voters and had a 5 percentage point margin for error. “ (Bloomberg)
There was a good deal of punditry after each debate between the two candidates, and in each instance, Kerry was found to be more “presidential” than the incumbent George Bush. Further, Kerry was also more “in touch” with the middle class. Go figure.
The CNN, New York Times, CBS and DNC game plan has not changed a great deal over the past 4 years, apparently so little that they could virtually recycle articles, plugging in Obama for Kerry.
Herein lies the problem with an attempt to sway the “court of public opinion”, it did not work in 2004, and it is unlikely to work in 2008. The reason is clear; the electorate has not changed a great deal in four years. It was supposed to be the “Year of the Democrat” (again all pundits are still pointing to this as the reason that Obama will win – along with these nifty post-debate polls), however, the reasons for it being the year of the Democrat appear to change with current events. First it was the Iraq War – Obama would win due to the dismal failure in Iraq. Since that did not work out quite so well for the Press and or the Obama Campaign, they had to focus on the Economy. Apparently, Democrats do well in Economic downturns. 2004 Political Economic Forecast: ” In 1992, Bill Clinton famously ascended to the presidency with an unofficial campaign slogan: It's the economy, stupid. Now, Americans weary of war and wary of terrorism face an election in which the economy -- by far the most important domestic issue -- largely has been kept on the sidelines. The economy is President Bush's most significant domestic weakness, and it has the potential to be Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's greatest strength.”
There are virtually no significant differences in the rhetoric used by the media and the campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Most voters have had their minds made up; and those that are being touted as “Independent voters” lean towards one party or the other. According to there has been virtually no change in the electorate in the last 3 election cycles (including 2008). Therefore, the race will be close; despite an apparent edge in the polls given to Obama, McCain, like Bush (here is where the resemblance ends), will, if these statistics hold true (and they should) be elected President on Nov. 4th.
2008 Conservative Feminist Debate Analysis: While Obama gets definite points for being a smooth talker, he lacks substance in most areas, and went on the attack more often than McCain (but did so seamlessly), also, McCain did not have the benefit of feeding talking points to the media preceding the debate (From Drudge Report email released to media pre-date: from: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:37:27 -0500 From: Sean Smith [s***mith@barackobama.com] Obama made several misstatements during the debate, specifically regarding his position in the Illinois Senate on Abortion and his continued denial of voting for tax cuts on those making $43,000 per year. McCain, on his part, did bring up Bill Ayers, as well as ACORN and the fact that the Obama campaign paid $800,000 to that organization in order to get out the vote – he also appeared tired, after a hard day on the campaign trail. He should have gone farther on several points, following up when Obama denied something patently false – instead, McCain gave Obama a pass, more civil. Obama won the debate based on his looks and his eloquence, and McCain won based on substance. Will this debate be enough to change minds? – Not likely. The independents do factor into the general election, but to the same degree they factored in 2004.
A Note: Should the military absentee ballots be included in this election (unlike 2004), the 68% of the military polled (assuming that polling is correct), that support McCain, and those that support Obama, should have their vote counted. With an election this close and with ACORN driven fraud prevalent in all swing states, waiting to count the vote of our Military should be a priority. Depending upon the state where the absentee ballot is cast, it could swing the Electoral College for either candidate.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The General Election – Division and Labels – Does it Ever Change?
Partisanship is the word of the day, (or has been since Barack Obama secured the nomination) - what one has to expect when two opposing political parties are campaigning for any office, that people will chose sides, it is expected. With each election the rhetoric is the worst it has ever been, the campaign advertisements are the worst they have ever been, and the polls are watched as if they are fact, not probability based on a small sample (generally 400 to 2,000 participants) of those who indicate they are most likely to vote. Pundits on both sides spar endlessly on the evening news and talk show circuits, extolling the virtues of their candidate and the vice of the opposition.
This year, it appears that partisanship has indeed risen to new heights, the media is more aggressive, op-ed pages are filled with hate couched in elite humor the “Non-Profit” organizations more aggressive in their “get out the vote” efforts. Has partisanship risen to new levels, or is it that the optimal conditions for one party over another, proven a bit overblown, and now, they must work harder to achieve their goals. Why is it that with an unpopular war, and the economy in a downturn, that Obama has still not sealed the deal, so to speak, with the media pushing as hard as it can to put him over the top? The answer is fairly simple, the electorate has not changed, not one bit, in four years. The country is still divided; however, it is not divided down the middle. Enter The Terrance Group and the Battleground Polls. This is the only poll that asks which way one’s political point of view leans, and surprisingly, one figure has remained consistent over the years, and that it the percentage of Americans who consider themselves “conservative”. Over 50% of the electorate still considers itself to be conservative, while 30% consider themselves to be liberal, and the balance leaning one way, or the other. Those inclined to live by polls, including those who had John Kerry changing the White House drapes by Mid-October, 2004, had apparently ignored the Battleground statistics. Full Battleground tables here The conservatives will elect a Moderate Democrat (A Clinton for example), but will not embrace a liberal thinker – go figure.
What is the influence on the American electorate? Morality and the ideology of Patriotism are clearly driving the voting patterns on both sides. Voters Guides are available for religious conservatives while those that feel religion should be left out of politics entirely turn to sor the Paper of Record, and or Katie Couric. One might argue, however, that the nation was founded upon the principals of religion; those who departed the Mayflower at Plymouth were seeking the freedom to worship outside the constraints of the Church of England, and God has played a pivotal role in every decision made in the foundation of this nation. One on the left could argue that the New York Times is also doing its part.
Will there be change, certainly, one or the other of these two candidates will be elected on the 4th of November, and as neither the Times nor the Polls, nor Nancy Pelosi has a crystal ball, it is anyone’s best guess as to who will be the next President. That said; History, my friends, is bound to repeat itself. Perhaps that is why the media is shriller and the operatives more desperate.
This year, it appears that partisanship has indeed risen to new heights, the media is more aggressive, op-ed pages are filled with hate couched in elite humor the “Non-Profit” organizations more aggressive in their “get out the vote” efforts. Has partisanship risen to new levels, or is it that the optimal conditions for one party over another, proven a bit overblown, and now, they must work harder to achieve their goals. Why is it that with an unpopular war, and the economy in a downturn, that Obama has still not sealed the deal, so to speak, with the media pushing as hard as it can to put him over the top? The answer is fairly simple, the electorate has not changed, not one bit, in four years. The country is still divided; however, it is not divided down the middle. Enter The Terrance Group and the Battleground Polls. This is the only poll that asks which way one’s political point of view leans, and surprisingly, one figure has remained consistent over the years, and that it the percentage of Americans who consider themselves “conservative”. Over 50% of the electorate still considers itself to be conservative, while 30% consider themselves to be liberal, and the balance leaning one way, or the other. Those inclined to live by polls, including those who had John Kerry changing the White House drapes by Mid-October, 2004, had apparently ignored the Battleground statistics. Full Battleground tables here The conservatives will elect a Moderate Democrat (A Clinton for example), but will not embrace a liberal thinker – go figure.
What is the influence on the American electorate? Morality and the ideology of Patriotism are clearly driving the voting patterns on both sides. Voters Guides are available for religious conservatives while those that feel religion should be left out of politics entirely turn to sor the Paper of Record, and or Katie Couric. One might argue, however, that the nation was founded upon the principals of religion; those who departed the Mayflower at Plymouth were seeking the freedom to worship outside the constraints of the Church of England, and God has played a pivotal role in every decision made in the foundation of this nation. One on the left could argue that the New York Times is also doing its part.
Will there be change, certainly, one or the other of these two candidates will be elected on the 4th of November, and as neither the Times nor the Polls, nor Nancy Pelosi has a crystal ball, it is anyone’s best guess as to who will be the next President. That said; History, my friends, is bound to repeat itself. Perhaps that is why the media is shriller and the operatives more desperate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
