Touchdown Romney, Game (not) Over

Mitt Romney won last night's debate. However, the game is not over.

 You see, Mitt needed a win. And knowing that he only needed a tie, Obama played not to lose, and lost. It was the political equivalent of a football team playing prevent defense. You send three linemen at the quarterback and drop the other 8 into coverage. Most of the time, playing prevent defense allows the quarterback time to throw, and receivers more time to shake the defenders, allowing the offense to march down the field. It's cost the University of Utah several games against BYU the past several years (and almost cost them this year's game).

 It's bad to play prevent defense when you are up by less than a touchdown, but even worse when you are down 17 in the 4th. A stop makes it very difficult to win. Allowing a touchdown gives your opponent momentum and confidence. But, you're still up 10 points. The game isn't over. Do you run down the clock, hoping your prevent defense will last until election day? Or do you play your norm, moving the ball effectively and efficiently down the field, hoping to play just as much offense to run the clock to 0:00?  Or, do you run wide-open aggressiveness, hoping you can stick the final nail in the coffin, but also hoping you don't throw an interception, allowing your opponent to have good field position.

I think a good place to start is by pointing out that It's easy to score a touchdown when you have 12 men on the field win a debate when you tell a lie every minute and 24 seconds, not counting lies you repeat.

We'll see what kind of coaches Team Obama has.  I just hope it's not Kyle Wittingham.

-Bob

FOX News Poll Bad For Romney

Fox News, that bastion of liberal media, released a new poll today.

And, well that poll looks bad.  It's bad for Mitt Romney.

The poll was conducted by live telephone calls on both cell phones and land line phones August 5-7.  All respondents were registered voters.  Margin of error is 3 points.

Romney 40%
Obama 49%
Other 2%
Would Vote 2%
Don't Know 8%

So, what you have is Obama with a 9-point lead over Romney.  In their July 15-17 poll, that number was 45-41 Obama, so he's increasing his lead.

One thing that made me nervous was that respondents were asked how interested about the election they were.    Of those who were "Extremely Interested" (42% of the sample), The Romney-Obama race was tied at 48-48.  However, in the previous poll, Romney led extremely interested voters 53-42.  So, Romney is losing ground with those extremely interested.

On Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for the candidates, we see Obama is more favorable than Romney

Obama 54% Favorable 42% Unfavorable
Romney 46% Favorable 45% Unfavorable

And, according to this poll, Obama has a 49% approval rating (46% disapprove).  President Obama has hovered between 42-49% since he hit 55% approval in May 2011 (just after the bin Laden kill).  While it's tough to win as an incumbent with an approval rating below 50%, It seems kike many of those who don't approve of Obama still won't vote for Mitt.

Regardless of how you would vote, how comfortable would you be with Mitt Romney as President?
Extremely Comfortable 8%
Very Comfortable 18%
Somewhat Comfortable 33%
Not at All comfortable 38%
Don't Know 3%

And, they asked the 71% that would be somewhat or not very comfortable with a President Romney what the main reason they felt that way. And, the answers they gave showed us where Romney fails:

His positions on the issues 17%
Phony/Dishonest 9%
Out of Touch 8%
Republican/Conservative 7%
For the Rich 7%
Everything 6%
His Wealth/He's rich 5%
Changes his positions/Flip flops 5%
Don't know enough about him 5%
Business Background/experience 4%
No Substance 3%
Too Conservative 2%
Religion/Mormonism 2%
Arrogant 2%
No Charisma 1%
Not Conservative enough 1%
Too close to Bush/Same as Bush 1%
Other 6%
Don't know 9%

So, most of the answers given are about Mitt the man, and it's hard to reintroduce yourself to the American people.  It can be done, but it's hard.  Especially when people have an opinion that you are an out of touch, dishonest rich politician in it for yourself.

Let's look at Obama on the same question:

Extremely Comfortable 21%
Very Comfortable 20%
Somewhat comfortable 22%
Not at all Comfortable 37%
Don't know 1%

Of the 59% of people who were somewhat or not at all comfortable with a second term for President Obama, they gave these reasons why:

Performance as President: 25%
Unemployment/Jobs/No economic recovery 15%
His positions on the issues 14%
Everything 9%
Health Care plan 6%
Big Government spending 5%
Socialist policies 4%
Phony/Dishonest 4%
Changes his positions/Flip flops 3%
Democrat/Liberal 2%
Taxes 2%
No substance/just a celebrity 1%
Arrogant 1%
Against business -
His background/race -
Other 5%
Don't know 4%

But, here's the kicker question, the question that has to have Team Mitt shaking in their shoes:

If Barack Obama is re-elected as president, which of the following best describes your feelings?

42% The country's going down the drain and I am dreading what is going to happen in the next four years.
18% The country's improving every day and I look forward to another four years.
7% neither
3% Don't know

Mitt Romney's Re-writing History on Pakistan, bin Laden

Remember last week when Republicans were making a big deal about President Obama taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden?

Who cares that he had to make the final decision whether to go in or not.  I mean, we don't elect Presidents to make decisions, do we?

And then Republicans were all up in arms when Democrats had the nerve to point out that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made that decision.  I mean, how could Democrats know what Mitt Romney would do?

Well, because Mitt Romney version 2007 told us:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa.

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.

Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

Oops.  Of course, Mitt has been known to change his mind once in a while.  It's the only thing he is consistent on.

Rednecks for Obama

On my way into Day 1 of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, I saw something that I thought was funny:

Then, on Day 3, we saw them again, and Aaron Thompson, JM Bell and I all got our picture with them:

Well, it appears President Obama has run into them. From Very Demotivational:

RNC Chair Blames Obama for Republicans' Bad Poll Numbers

I remember reading a political training manual that had a section that talked about sticking to your talking points no matter what the question. The example was that if your talking points were about reducing government waste and someone asks you about animal control, you say "That's why government needs to stop wasting money on ridiculous things, so that we have more money to spend on important things like animal control."

Well, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee just gave a prime example of sticking to your talking points. His talking points are "Barack Obama is a bad leader." The question? "Why are your poll numbers down so much?"

Watch the hilarity ensue:

Obama is the very model of a modern U.S. president!

(h/t: Roger Ebert)

If You're The GOP Chairman, Re-write History

The GOP meme of Barack Obama being a miracle worker is continuing. Chairman Steele, take it away:

This was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.

What war is he talking about?

Afghanistan, silly.

Because, really, Obama was the Commander-in-Chief when the war started in October 2001.

And we all know that it was Iraq that attacked us the month before, also on Obama's watch.

See the video for yourself:



-Bob

Real Salt Lake Visits President Obama

James Edward, prep sports editor for the Desert News, was in the Gold Room today when 2009 MLS Champion Real Salt Lake visited the White House. (Really, DNews, you sent the PREP SPORTS EDITOR to Washington for this? The guy who covers Daggett County wasn't available?)

He shot this video:



I especially like the equipment manager getting the President's autograph at the end.

-Bob

Obama: GOP Drove Nation Into Ditch, Want Keys Back

I somehow missed this last week, but it's still funny:

Ron Paul: Obama Not a Socialist

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ron Paul here.

Republicans and tea party activists are fond of accusing President Barack Obama of being a socialist, but today party gadfly Ron Paul said they had it wrong.

“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

Jon Stewart on How Effed Up Democrats Are

From the Monday, January 18, 2010 episode:

Please put health care negotions on CSPAN, like you said you would

Because, really, what came out of the Senate was not reform -- it was a Christmas gift to insurance companies.

So,please, I want to know who is standing on the side of insurance companies and who is standing on the side of Americans who will be hurt by ReidCare.

So, let CSPAN into the room.

I stand behind Joe Wilson

At the President's Speech before Congress last Night, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson shouted back at the President.

"You Lie"

And now, he is being blasted by the left for his breech of decorum. His opponent has raised over $200,000 since Rep Wilson's breach of decorum.

I think the fact that President Obama was telling the truth when Rep Wilson made his outburst stands for itself.

However, I wish more Congresscritters would be willing to stand up and say it. I would have loved if my own RepINO Matheson (or any of the other of the 535 Congresspeople) blurted out "You Lie!" just one of the times I yelled Bullshit to my TV when Bush was delivering a State of the Union.

Or, if Joe Biden had said it during his debate with Sarah Palin.

I enjoy watching Parliament, because they can heckle each other, especially when the Prime Minister comes to visit.

Heck, it would make C-SPAN watchable.

-Bob

P.S. I also wanted to point out that 8 months ago, if you shouted "you lie" at the President of the United States, you'd be called a traitor and Unamerican.

He;s the President, Reporters Should Learn How to Spell His Name

20 hours later, the typo is still there.

Horrible Birther Poll Reporting by KSL/DesNews

The Results:

Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a U.S. citizen?

Definitely a U.S. citizen: 48%
Probably a U.S. citizen: 19%
Probably Not a U.S. citizen: 4%
Definitely not a U.S. citizen: 5%
Don't Know: 23%

(n=402, Conducted Aug 3-5, MoE =/- 5%)

So, 9% of those polled don't think Obama's a citizen. So, how do you spin the poll?

DesNews: 1/3 of Utahns question Obama birthplace

KSL: One-third of Utahns unsure if Pres. Obama is American

-Bob

President Obama Remembers Walter Cronkite

Watch CBS Videos Online

Barack Obama's 2008 Father's Day Speech

Funny Friday: He's Barack Obama

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

On Obama's Mom's Mormon Baptism

I opened my Facebook this morning and saw that several of my friends had posted a link to an article on AMERICAblog about "The Mormons" having baptized President Barack Obama's dead mother. And, of course, i had to write a post about it.

Some initial thoughts that I had:

1) either the LDS Church is true or it isn't. If it isn't true, then nothing happens to a person's soul, right?

2) In LDS Church doctrine, even after a person is baptized posthumously, that person still needs to accept it.

3) My great-grandmother has been baptized posthumously at least three times, despite the fact she was baptized while she was alive (and a lifelong member at that). I use this to point out that some members of the Church tend to wildly put down names to be baptized for without doing their homework.

4 (and this is the big one)) I'm fairly certain that this is against Church policy to do Temple work for people who have next-of-kin who haven't given permission.

It was this last point that made me do some homework, so that I would present correct information.

And, low and behold, I found more information on the Chrusch's web site than I thought I would. While it was written specifically to talk about problems with baptizing of holocost victims, it applies here as well. I have copied the following from the Church's Newsroom section, and have put in bold some of the pertinent sections.

A fundamental Church doctrine is that God grants to everyone the opportunity to receive His offer of salvation. God’s offer is universal, but each person must choose for himself or herself whether to accept it — God does not dictate the choice and no one else can impose it. Church doctrine states that to accept God’s offer one must, among other things, have faith, repent of sins, and be baptized by immersion.

It is fundamental to the Church’s concept of God as perfectly just and perfectly merciful that the baptismal invitation be extended to all. The Church’s extensive missionary program is an effort to extend that invitation to people throughout the world. However, millions have died without the opportunity to accept baptism. Church doctrine teaches that these persons continue to exist in the afterlife as conscious spirits with the capacity to learn, exercise faith, and make choices pertaining to their personal salvation. Consistent with practices dating back to New Testament times (see 1 Corinthians 15:29), Church members perform proxy or vicarious baptisms on behalf of those who have died without baptism. Proxy baptisms are considered so sacred they are performed only in Church temples.

The temple (proxy) baptism ceremony is simple and brief. Two people, dressed in white clothing, enter a temple baptismal font. One offers a short prayer in which the name of a deceased person is reverently spoken. He then briefly immerses the other person in the water.

As required by Church doctrine, a temple baptism is noted on Church records. However, the Church does not list persons as members of the Church or “Mormons” merely because proxy baptisms have been performed. Church doctrine teaches that at some point the spirit of the deceased person will be informed that a baptism has been performed on his or her behalf and will be given the opportunity to accept or reject it. The Church has no way of knowing whether a person has accepted the baptism and thus does not consider such persons Church members. In this way, Church members extend the opportunity to accept the Church’s message and faith to all people.

Although the Church teaches that temple baptisms must eventually be performed for everyone who did not receive them in this life, from the beginning Church members have been taught to focus their efforts on their own relatives. Hundreds of thousands of members throughout the world conduct private genealogical research to determine the names of their departed relatives and then submit those names to temples for the performance of proxy baptisms. The process for submitting names is relatively open and depends on the accuracy and good-faith of Church members around the world. Because any Church member can research and submit names for temple baptisms, errors and duplications sometimes occur.

Church members are specifically instructed not to submit the names of persons not related to them. Before performing temple baptisms for a deceased family member born within the last 95 years, members are instructed to get permission from the person's closest living relative.

So, to sum it up: Yes, the person who submitted the name was in error.

-Bob

Two LDS Church leaders say Obama brings them hope

I took the headline straight from KSL.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com