Careo Boricua
Registrate para comentar.
Register to post.

Unirse al foro, es rápido y fácil

Careo Boricua
Registrate para comentar.
Register to post.
Careo Boricua
¿Quieres reaccionar a este mensaje? Regístrate en el foro con unos pocos clics o inicia sesión para continuar.
Buscar
 
 

Resultados por:
 


Rechercher Búsqueda avanzada


Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012

Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012

Mensaje por Charlie319 Jue Ago 16, 2012 2:33 pm

Estamos de cara a una gesta electoral en lo federal que puede arrojar resultados muy interesantes. Aun si se asume el triunfo del ídolo de la centro-izquierda por le partido Demócrata, hay una cantidad enorme de escaños en juego tanto en el Senado como en la Cámara de Representantes. Según los genios de la política de los EEUU, El partido Demócrata tiene el control del Senado con una leve ventaja de 53 – 47. O sea, si los Republicanos desbancan a cuatro Democratas mas de los que pierdan ellos… Obama, de ganarle a Romney, tendría que vérselas con un legislativo controlado por la oposición. Florida, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota y Conneticut se perfilan como campos de batalla que podrían resultar en un pírrico triunfo de Obama que lo condenaría a no tener mayoría en cámara alguna.

El objetivo de este tema es continuar la discusión de los eventos y posibles repercusiones de esta gesta política y ver, o mas bien pronosticar, como se ira deshojando la margarita camino a las elecciones de noviembre.
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Le dan tremendo golpe de guante a Obama por donde mas le debe de irritar...

Mensaje por Charlie319 Mar Sep 04, 2012 8:51 am

En un movimiento estrategico, una organizacion pone de sobreaviso al DNC y sus alicates sobre denuincias de fraude si certifican a Obama sin saber a ciencia cierta si el Presi esta o no calificado por nacimiento para ser candidato...

Obama lawyer warned against certifying eligibility
'For any party official to do so would be to perjure him or herself'
Published: 11 hours ago

by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.

A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges.

The letter from Larry Klayman explains that’s because those officials simply cannot know Obama’s eligibility for sure, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.

In his letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, Klayman explained that the evidence shows no one knows for sure about Obama’s eligibility, so letters from the DNC to states about Obama’s 2012 candidacy may be problematic.

There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.

“At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”

Such verifications, if created, would be “perjurious,” Klayman said.

Arizona’s inquiry

The evidence he cites in the letter encompasses several issues, including the recent highly publicized exchange sparked by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who asked the state of Hawaii, where Obama says he was born, to verify the “natural born citizen” status of the likely Democratic nominee.

WND reported Bennett eventually “closed” his inquiry into the issue without getting any pertinent documentation.

Bennett formally inquired of Hawaii for verification of Obama’s birth records there, and when he received a statement from state officials announced his inquiry was closed.

As to whether the president was born in Hawaii, personally I believe he was,” he said. “I actually think he was fibbing about being born in Kenya when he was trying to get into college.”

But he said all clearly was not above-board.

“I think he has spent $1.5 to $2 million through attorneys to have all the college records and all that stuff sealed,” Bennett said. “So if you’re spending money to seal something, that’s probably where the hanky panky was going on.”

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has formal investigation going on into the issue of Obama’s eligibility, and preliminary results have confirmed that the image of a birth document posted online by the White House is not real.

Path to conclusion

Klayman’s path to the conclusion that no one really can know wasn’t complicated.

He noted that the Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka “failed” to provide verification to Bennett of Obama’s birth information.

“He did, however, verify that ‘the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.’

Mr. Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the image posted at whitehouse.gov ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record…’”

But Klayman explained the state law requires Onaka to furnish “in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified.”

Klayman explained that leaves Onaka no option and “the only legal reason for Onaka to not verify those facts is if he can’t legally do so. Since he verified that those claims are on the record in the DOH files, the record itself must not have ‘probative value.’

“The only legal reason for not verifying that the posted long-form ‘is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files’ is if it is not. There is no other plausible explanation,” Klayman said.

WND contacted Bauer’s firm, Perkins Coie, for a comment, but there was no response on the holiday today.

Altered

But Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states, “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand along without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.

Klayman’s conclusion is that “no one can state with any legal certainty that candidate Obama is even old enough to be president, much less that he meets the exclusively high bar of ‘natural-born citizen’ status, required by Article II, Section I, Clause 5.”

He noted at this point “No one can legally swear that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president; and because the DNC bylaws require the Democratic presidential candidate to be constitutionally eligible, there is also, therefore, no party official who can legally swear that Mr. Obama is the ‘legally qualified candidate’ of the Democratic Party, under its own bylaws.”

Perjury

For a party official to do so “would be to perjure him or herself,” he wrote.

Klayman told Bauer that in 2008 the Hawaii Democratic Party “removed the standard language heretofore employed certifying the ‘constitutional eligibility’ of candidates Obama and Biden.”

“In other words, the state party most keenly aware of Mr. Obama’s existing records would not (and did not) certify their constitutional eligibility,” he said. However, at the same time, “then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, did certify their constitutional eligibility [to present] to election officials in Hawaii, while removing that same standard language [when it was] presented in at least some (if not all) of the remaining states.”

Klayman, whose high-profile legal career has included lawsuits against OPEC, Cuban interests, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, told WND the letter puts Democrats on notice that certifying Obama’s eligibility without having the actual knowledge opens them up to a liability for making false statements.

2008 documents

WND reported early in Obama’s term on the issue of the 2008 certifications.

A commentator at Canada Free Press first exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president and then said Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.

“In most states,” Williams wrote, “it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.”

He had released copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president, one that contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility and filed in Hawaii (where state law requires the specific language) and another omitting the language and filed in the remaining 49 states.

The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”


One image of the certification for Barack Obama’s nomination, including the affirmation Obama and Joe Biden “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Pelosione
The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, but in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.


Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Pelosi2two
Another image of a certification, on which the certification of eligibility has been removed.


Esto se puede poner bueno ya que o el Obama no esta calificado por no haber nacido aqui, o se puede destapar un fraude a las universidades que pensaban estar admitiendo a un estudiante africano que no lo era... De una manera u otra, no hay gane para los democratas aqui...
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty El "peo" del video de Romney y el 47%...

Mensaje por Charlie319 Miér Sep 19, 2012 9:04 am

Me he tomado el tiempo de ver el videito que el sobrino de Jimmy Carter le mando a el reportero anti-Republicano de la revista liberal "MOther Jones", y la verdad es que no veo cual es el alboroto...

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in the video of a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/17/3819786/romney-shifts-message-to-challenge.html#storylink=cpy

Aqui esta el texto del video https://youtu.be/nvqHERTcytI :

For the past 3 years, all everybody’s been told is "don’t worry, we’ll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections to convince everybody, you’ve got to take care of yourself?

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe the government who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

Ans I mean the president starts off with 48, 49, 4—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them. They should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents. That are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.


Cierto es que hoy dia hay un 47% del electorado que esta comprometido con Obama al punto de que no voatarian por nadia mas sin importar lo que ocurra en el proximo mes y medio. Romney no se puede, ni debe preocupar por ese 47% que no va a cambier de opinion, y de hecho el discurso se centra en preocuparse por esos electores que son independientes o indecisos, no de ese 47% de los votantes que no vale la pena tratar de convencer.

Igualmente es cierto que un 47% de la poblacion no paga impuestos sobre ingresos. Tambien como lo es que hay mucha gente que recibe mantengo y que usa el mantengo como modo de vida y que probablemente estos van a votar por Obama. Definitivamente si tu esperas que papa-gobierno te mantenga, eres una sanguijuela socio-economica.

Pero me diran: "Oye, pero en esas cifras estan los que reciben retiro del seguro social"... Si y no. Hay muchos recipietes de esos beneficios que si esperan que les den todo, pero igualmente hay otros que viven dentro de sus medios con lo que les paga ese programa al cual han contribuido por decadas. El Seguro Social no es un programa de mantengo.

Obama, y los socialistas democratas van a recostarse sobre estas personas que ven a la clase adinerada como los autores de su situacion como la parte a la cual cobrarle su venganza por sus errores de juicio. No veo nada aqui de lo cual se deba de disculpar Romney pues no es su culpa que ese 47% quiera seguir mamando de la teta del erario publico.
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Del NY Post

Mensaje por Charlie319 Miér Sep 19, 2012 9:25 am

The truth can set Mitt free
By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last Updated: 2:21 AM, September 19, 2012

Posted: 1:57 AM, September 19, 2012

Under the prevailing definition of a gaffe — accidentally telling the truth — Mitt Romney is guilty, guilty, guilty. The only surprise is that he knew the truth all along and kept it to himself.

A tape from a May fund-raiser is rocking the campaign because Romney was “caught” accurately outlining our political polarization.

As a defining principle, the almost-half the nation backing President Obama wants government to do more. The other half backs Romney because it knows the government already does too much.

It is a financial fight, but also a cultural one. The entitlement mentality isn’t limited to those who earned or desperately need their country’s help.

We’re sinking because too many politicians like Obama think their job is to “level the playing field” by confiscating wealth from some Americans and giving it to others. First, they take a big cut for themselves and their friends.

It is a fact that nearly 47 percent, as Romney said, don’t have any skin in the game — they pay no federal income taxes. Not all are greedy, of course, but whatever the government spends is gravy to them. The more spending of other people’s money, the more gravy they get.

These clashing views about the role and size of government are what the 2012 campaign is about. Or should be.

Until now, Romney has been too timid in saying so, while Obama has been more forthright in promising an ever bigger, more powerful state. Obama is winning that argument because he is a more talented politician and a better liar in claiming the endless goodies can be paid for by hiking taxes on the top 2 percent. His road leads to Greece, with stops for insolvency and soaring unemployment.

No matter. Who can resist free stuff, especially when the president says go ahead, everybody else does it? And you deserve it because society is rigged against you and America is unjust, blah, blah, blah.

That, not incidentally, was the theme of the Democratic convention. For three days, the grievance committee was in session, with a parade of speakers railing against success and complaining that somebody’s check wasn’t in the mail. They celebrated victimhood as a sign of virtue.

Grievance is also the theme of the Occupy rabble. Is there any doubt the vagabonds taunting cops and making life miserable for working New Yorkers will vote for Obama, if they bother to vote?

So now, Romney is on the record saying all this much more clearly than ever, although he was reckless in appearing to fault half the population. Still, he’s stuck with the message, and repeated it Monday, saying, “The president’s approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes because frankly, my discussion about lowering taxes isn’t as attractive to them.”

Romney was also succinctly savvy on foreign policy. He accused the president of believing “his magnetism and his charm and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like [Vladimir] Putin and [Hugo] Chávez and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, and that they’ll find that we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go on with us, and they’ll stop doing bad things.” He added, “It’s an extraordinarily naive perception.”

That naivete was true even before the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy and anti-American riots broke out in most Arab countries. But Obama clings to denial about Islamic fundamentalism because to admit it would demolish his self-aggrandizing “great man” theory Romney aptly described.

Romney also said that Palestinians “are committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel” and that, as a result, there was little chance of a settlement. Ha — another gaffe!

Now that he’s been exposed speaking his mind, coming days will show whether Romney sees it as liberation or a mistake. Here’s hoping he has the courage to embrace the substance, and that he and Paul Ryan couple a new boldness with more detail on their plans for economic growth and job creation. Their vagueness has been unpersuasive and a ripe target for Obama attacks.

Because Romney is right about the nation’s divide, he may lose the election no matter what he does. But defeat will be far more bitter if he doesn’t give voters his honest assessment of where America is headed. Over the next 48 days, he owes 100 percent candor to 100 percent of us.

Paranoid Liu-sers blame ‘Nazis’

You know John Liu has exhausted legitimate defenses of his suspect fund-raising when his team starts trotting out Nazi accusations. But that’s where he is, with supporters of the city comptroller comparing his plight to that of Holocaust victims.

“Were there a lot of people who saw people being killed and sent to gas chambers that didn’t speak out?” Chinatown activist Virginia Kee asked at a cry-fest called to denounce a federal probe into whether Liu used straw donors to hide the source of big contributors.

Two people have been charged, a donor and Liu’s former campaign treasurer. Liu denies any wrongdoing and says he still plans to run for mayor next year.

Bring it on. His chance of winning is next to nil, so he’d have lots of time to think about how he ran a once-promising career into the ditch. And New Yorkers could get a real comptroller to watch over the next mayor.

O’s brazen ‘pen’ pals

“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it,” Winston Churchill famously said. And he did write history — after he left office, and under his own name.

That’s old school to President Obama. He can’t wait and doesn’t even have to do the writing himself.

Incredibly, a celebrated journalist concedes he turned over his Vanity Fair magazine profile of Obama to the White House for editing. He also says Obama suggested the narrative of the article.

Shock — the piece is a rave.

Michael Lewis, author of “The Big Short” and “Moneyball,” told NPR the White House approved 95 percent of the draft he submitted, according to The Weekly Standard. Lewis didn’t describe the other 5 percent, but it’s a sure bet the wheat got edited out and the chaff got published.

It is a stunning confession, and a blight on Lewis’ reputation. Then again, some on the left will bear any burden and pay any price to serve Dear Leader.

Curfew plan is full of shut

A New Jersey judge has halted the start of a curfew in Camden, NJ, that would force businesses in residential areas to close at 11 p.m. on weeknights. The goal is to stop crime by keeping young people off the streets while, in effect, punishing innocent store owners.

Here’s an alternative: Just arrest those who actually commit crimes. Like society used to do.

Lard have mercy!

The AP reports that a 480-pound killer on Ohio’s death row hopes to avoid execution by claiming his weight would cause him to suffer a “torturous and lingering death.”

In other words, he wants to eat his way to clemency.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/the_truth_can_set_mitt_free_9noS6FwgRRD6DDajARzJLN#ixzz26vBNeil1
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Aparece otra hermanita de SOLYNDRA

Mensaje por Charlie319 Vie Sep 28, 2012 11:46 am

Se acuerdan de SOLYNDRA, la empresa "verde" a la cual Obama le dio un monton de "Obama-Money"? La empresa de la cual un principal accionista era un contribuyente a la gesta politica de Barry???? Pues acaba de aparecer una "hermanita" de SOLYNDRA en la forma de Smith Electric Vehicles. Pero no les quito mas tiempo con preliminares... Pasemos a el reportaje:
Staggering Smith Electric may be next Solyndra-like clean energy flop
September 25, 2012 | 2:18 pm

Another company that got millions of federal tax dollars in clean energy economic stimulus funds and a promotional visit by President Obama appears to be in jeopardy of going out of business.

Smith Electric Vehicles, a British company now based in Kansas City, canceled its scheduled Sept. 21 initial public offering listing, and now faces an uncertain future reminiscent of the last days of the Solyndra solar energy firm before it went banktupt.

Smith makes electric powered trucks favored by the Obama administration, yet has never turned a profit and is heavily in debt. Smith originally scheduled its IPO to seek $125 million in new investment, but cut that back to only $75 million, then cancelled the offering outright.

"It is an astonishing disaster and it is likely the next step might be a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing," said Eric Meltzer, a Philadelphia-based manager of distressed companies.

The failed IPO is being compared to Solyndra because it also cancelled an IPO just before filing for bankruptcy. Solyndra cancelled its public offering just before filing for bankruptcy.

The U.S. Department of Energy fast tracked $10 million in stimulus money to Smith only eight months after the British firm acquired a building in Kansas City and was without any production capability. The administration eventually awarded the firm $32 million in grants.

The latest setback comes as the firm admitted it would fail to meet its projected 620 trucks this year. It cut back its goal to 380 trucks, a 40 percent reduction. But as of June it was off that modest projection, producing only a claimed total of 79.

The U.S. company was founded by its British parent company, the Tanfield Group, a week before Obama's inauguration in January 2009.

Visiting the plant on July 8, 2010, Obama hailed Smith Electric as a "promising, innovative" green business. Democratic Senatorial candidate Robin Carnahan, a member of Missouri's powerful Carnahan political dynasty, accompanied Obama to the plant. Carnahan lost her Senate bid that year. (See video of Obama's speech at Smith Electric's plant embedded below this story.)

Smith's net losses are accelerating, and this year it recorded a record $52.5 million loss, according to the firm's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its SEC filing, Smith Electric stated, "we have never been profitable and as of June 30, 2012 have an accumulated deficit of $132.8 million."

The company was down to its last $800,000 when it received a $16.5 million bridge loan from Tanfield. Most of that money has been spent.

Smith CEO Bryan Hansel said of the IPO cancellation that "we were unable to complete a transaction at a valuation or size that would be in the best interests of our company and its existing shareholders." He said they would pursue unnamed private investors.

In its SEC filing, the company conceded that it faced many financial and operational problems.

The company has very limited customer base of only eight companies, and "the loss of any of these customers could materially harm our business."

The SEC filing contained other damaging revelations. The firm said that its truck's lithium-ion battery cells "have been observed to catch fire or vent smoke and flames," and their warranty reserves may be insufficient to cover future warranty claims.

The company's top management has limited or no experience in the automobile or truck business. Hansel previously led Evo Medical Solutions, which sold portable oxygen concentrators.

Tanfield Group, Smith's British parent company, has encountered its own financial troubles. In 2008, it saw its value plunge from £700 million to just £18 million, according to the British financial publication The Journal.

That's when Tanfield spun off failing Smith Electric Vehicles UK and re-established it in the United States, where it got its start with federal stimulus funds.


Obama-money para una empresa britanica?????
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Biden mete la pata o dice la verdad????

Mensaje por Charlie319 Miér Oct 03, 2012 12:09 pm

A biden se le escapa otro comentario embarazoso para Obama...

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/10/republicans-thank-vp-joe-biden-for-making-their-point-about-how-obama-buried-the-middle-class/

Republicans thank VP Joe Biden for making their point about how Obama buried the middle class
Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Vice President Joe Biden is once again proving to be a great asset to the Republicans.

First there was his ‘”put y’all back in chains” remark, which led to Republicans joking that he should attend the Republican National Convention and campaign on their behalf.

Now, the Romney-Ryan ticket is thanking the Vice President for making their point about the middle class.

At an event in Charlotte, N.C. yesterday, Biden questioned how Republican presidential nominee could justify raising taxes on the middle class that is suffering:

“This is deadly earnest, man. This is deadly earnest. How can they justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four years? How in the Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts?”

It did not escape the Republicans that Biden had limited that statement to the last four years, an error that he corrected at a later campaign stop by saying that the last four years were a consequence of President Bush’s policies ” that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney supported.”

While Biden was working on dialing back his misstep, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan used Biden’s statement to his advantage. “Vice President Biden, just today, said that the middle class, over the last four years, has been buried. We agree. That means we need to stop digging by electing Mitt Romney the next President of the United States,” he told the crowd in Burlington, Iowa.

Day before, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney tweeted: “Another term for @BarackObama will only bring more of the same policies that have devastated the middle class.” Biden’s comment played right into this rhetoric and the campaign didn’t hesitate to tweet that they agree with the current Vice President

The campaign even went on to schedule a conference call with former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu who said, “Vice President Biden finally got something right … the middle class has been devastated under President Obama.” According to him, the U.S. is dealing with “economy in crisis” and cannot afford four more years of President Obama’s policies.



Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Se cierra la contienda

Mensaje por Charlie319 Lun Oct 08, 2012 3:06 pm

No he querido hacer mucho hincapie en la soberbia pela que le dio el mormon al idolo de ebano en el desigual combate del debatetelevisado Sencillamente a Obama le pegaron hasta dentro del pelo... Pero aqui viene lo mejor... Tras la tunda que le propino el mormon, las encuesas han seguido la tunda con el insulto

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157907/romney-narrows-vote-gap-historic-debate-win.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

Romney Narrows Vote Gap After Historic Debate Win
By record-high margin, debate watchers say Romney did better
by Jeffrey M. JonesPRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters' preferences for president are evenly split in the first three days of Gallup tracking since last Wednesday's presidential debate. In the three days prior to the debate, Barack Obama had a five-percentage-point edge among registered voters.

Gallup typically reports voter presidential preferences in seven-day rolling averages; the latest such average as of Saturday interviewing shows Obama with an average three-point edge, 49% to 46%, among registered voters. This Sept. 30-Oct. 6 field period includes three days before the Oct. 3 debate, the night of the debate itself, and three days after the debate.
Even on this basis, the race has become somewhat more competitive compared with before the first debate. Obama held four- to six-point leads in Gallup's seven-day tracking results in the eight days prior to the Oct. 3 debate.



Should Mitt Romney's momentum continue in the coming days, that gap in the seven-day rolling average would narrow further.

Romney Posts Historic Win in Debate

An Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll finds roughly two in three Americans reporting that they watched the Oct. 3 debate, similar to what Gallup measured for each of the three 2008 presidential debates. Those who viewed the debate overwhelmingly believe Romney did a better job than Obama, 72% to 20%. Republicans were nearly unanimous in judging Romney the winner. But even Democrats rated Romney as doing a better job than Obama, 49% to 39%.


These assessments are based on interviewing conducted Thursday and Friday after the Wednesday night debate, and may reflect the impact of news stories and media commentary -- which mostly declared Romney as the debate winner -- as well as personal reactions to the debates as they unfolded.
Gallup has assessed opinion on who did better in most past presidential debates; some of these polls were conducted the night of the debate with pre-recruited samples of debate watchers immediately after it concluded, and some were conducted with more general samples of Americans in the days that followed the debate. Across all of the various debate-reaction polls Gallup has conducted, Romney's 52-point win is the largest Gallup has measured. The prior largest margin was 42 points for Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in the 1992 town hall debate.

Romney's debate performance is also notable from the standpoint that U.S. debate watchers judged Obama the winner of all three 2008 debates with John McCain.

Implications

The first presidential debate went decidedly in Romney's favor. The debate appears to have affected voters to some degree, given the narrowing of the race in the three days after the debate compared with the three days prior. Still, the impact was not so strong that it changed the race to the point where Romney emerged as the leader among registered voters. Rather, at least in the first three days of Gallup tracking after the debate, the race is tied.

But even that small movement is significant, given the competitiveness of the race throughout this presidential campaign year and the fact that debates rarely transform presidential election races.

However, the generally positive unemployment report released on Friday may serve to blunt some of Romney's post-debate momentum.

In any case, with a month to go before Election Day, the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is still very much in doubt. That certainly raises the stakes for both candidates in the next two debates, Oct. 16 in Hempstead, N.Y., and Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla.
Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  T8ahhh-ho0sosuaddjw0yaLas elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Iczxh5kxa0khb3zdy7vlbgLas elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Yw-tuhotheefulsizycwfq
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty El SEGUNDO DEBATE PRESIDENCIAL - TABLAS

Mensaje por Charlie319 Miér Oct 17, 2012 9:01 am

Anoche fue el segundodebate presidencial.. . GAD que lo grabe... En fin, he aqui algunos post-mortems de la velada en la cual el Presi salio a pelear, y en la cual parecio gozar de cierta parcialidad por parte de la moderadora, pero no conecto suficientes golpes para borrar su falta de aptitud y presencia del fiasco de Denver... Esto de NPR:
http://www.kasu.org/post/stronger-showing-hofstra-ghost-denver-still-haunts-obama


A Stronger Showing At Hofstra, But Ghost Of Denver Still Haunts Obama
By Ron Elving

Tuesday.President Obama beat at least one of his adversaries on the stage at Hofstra University last night. He easily outperformed that guy — whoever he was — who debated against former Gov. Mitt Romney two weeks ago in Denver.

That much was obvious — and necessary for the president. The question now is whether it will be sufficient to restore his momentum in the race itself.

Some "instant polls" and other quickie measures were heartening to the Obama camp. But no matter how much Obama's showing at Hofstra surpassed his Denver no-show, it will not eradicate the damage or make up for lost time. Only one chance remains to do so before Election Day, so the pressure that animated the Hofstra debate will be all the greater Monday night in the debate series' finale in Florida.

In Denver on Oct. 3, the president had seemed stuck in second gear, unable to gain much momentum, let alone any lift. One wondered if he was striving for the hesitations people found so charming and authentic in Jimmy Stewart's acting style. Needless to say, the charm wore off quickly. The president began falling in the polls, both generally and in his key demographic groups such as women and younger voters. A visible Obama edge in the polls in nearly every battleground state gave way to a tie or a deficit in most of those same states. Electoral College projections that had the president ahead by 50 or 60 electoral votes or more on Oct. 1 shrank that lead to a handful.

That was the backdrop for Tuesday night's rematch. This time, speaking to voters directly in the town hall format, the president regularly worked up into third gear, got some momentum and made his points. He even captured flashes of the drama he brings to the stages he dominates while campaigning. He was utterly focused, fully engaged and ready to trade punches.

But did the president improve enough to eclipse his other problem? It must be said that Romney himself once again gave a strong performance in the role of a candidate challenging a sitting president. The former governor did not quite glow and gleam with the same confidence as he had in Denver, and at times the incumbent got the better of him. Indeed, Romney often seemed frustrated with both his opponent and the debate's moderator, Candy Crowley of CNN, and now and then he let that show.

At least some observers were impressed enough with the president's mere improvement to say he had overshadowed Romney. Others noted that as the consensus winner of the first debate — and still the candidate rising in the polls — Romney only had to hold his own.

Surely, Romney could anticipate the headlines being written to highlight the president's comeback. But he also knew that as the days dwindle down and polls move in his favor, that comeback might well be coming too late to change the tide.

That is why even after Hofstra, the ghost of Denver will continue to haunt the Obama campaign in the days ahead. It will be said that if Obama had debated Hofstra-strong on Oct. 3, we would not now be having the same conversation about Debate No. 2.

Some even believe that had Obama fought the super-prepared Romney to a draw in Denver, he would have foreclosed his rival's last best chance to overtake him. There has always been a school of thought that the first debate sets the tone for the fall campaign. Had the president done as well in that first test as he did in the second (or better), the presidential race could now be all but over. Polls that had been moving pro-Obama would have been confirmed and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Democrats could have shifted their attention (and dollars) to Senate and House races.

Instead, it has taken the Obama camp three debates (counting the vice-presidential face-off) to refloat their flagship. And there is no guarantee that having done so, they can expect smooth sailing in the final debate.


Esto del "Telegraph" de Londres: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9614228/US-election-live.html


US presidential debate: Barack Obama fights back against Mitt Romney

Barack Obama struck back with a clear victory over Mitt Romney in the second presidential debate, aggressively confronting his Republican challenger during a bad-tempered showdown in New York.

By Jon Swaine, Hempstead
6:16AM BST 17 Oct 2012

Seeking to recover from his slide in opinion polls, the US president challenged Mr Romney on a string of prominent campaign issues that he chose to ignore during his feeble showing in the first debate.

He accused Mr Romney of attempting to sell voters a “sketchy deal”, devoid of economic policy detail, that he would never have accepted in his former career as a venture capitalist. “And neither should you, the American people,” he said, “because the math doesn't add up”.

He also sharply criticised Mr Romney over his remarks “behind closed doors” that 47 per cent of the Americans are government-dependent victims who refuse to take responsibility for their lives.

“I want to fight for them,” Mr Obama said in his closing statement. “That's what I've been doing for the last four years – because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds”.

A snap poll by CNN found 46 per cent of respondents thought Mr Obama had beaten Mr Romney, with 39 per cent backing the former Massachusetts governor. A CBS poll handed it to the President 37-30 while a PPP survey of voters in Colorado, a key battleground state, said he won by 48 points to 44.

Having triumphed in Denver two weeks ago, Mr Romney – who leads Mr Obama nationally by 0.4 points, according to RealClearPolitics – was repeatedly frustrated. At one point he was even corrected by the moderator, Candy Crowley, to applause from the audience of the “town hall” debate.

Responding to a question on the Sept 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Mr Romney accused Mr Obama of falsely claiming in his own answer to have described the incident as an “act of terror” during his remarks at the White House the following day.

He did, in fact, call it an act of terror,” said Crowley, much to Mr Obama's delight. The President said in the Sept 12 speech: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”, while also blaming a protest against an anti-Islamic film, which later turned out not to have taken place.

Furious aides to Mr Romney later accused Mr Obama and Crowley of being “flat wrong”. Claiming that she had “skewed” the debate, Sean Spicer, a spokesman, said: “That’s not her job – she interjected herself where she was not meant to, and she was wrong”.

The candidates, who were free to leave their stools and roam the stage, addressed each other directly and bitterly at several points. Mr Romney repeatedly complained that Mr Obama had made false claims about his record and that he had not been given equal time to respond.

After astonishing supporters by demurring when presented with opportunities to attack during the first debate, Mr Obama this time began landing blows on Mr Romney from his first answer.

Condemning the Republican's opposition to the bail-out of the US car industry after the financial crisis, he said: “When Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said, 'we're going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it's come surging back'.”

He told voters Mr Romney “only has to pay 14 per cent on his taxes when a lot of you are paying much higher”, thanks to loopholes on investment income the former Massachusetts governor would widen.

And in an attempt to reopen a wide advantage among women voters that had drastically narrowed since the first debate, he sharply criticised Mr Romney for standing alongside Republican congressional leaders in seeking to restrict women's rights to abortion and subsidised contraception.

By contrast Mr Romney stumbled over his claim to have been an equal-opportunity boss as Massachusetts governor, awkwardly saying that he had redressed a gender imbalance by bringing in “binders full of women” to the state house.

Mr Romney told the tens of millions of viewers that Mr Obama had presided over a limp economic recovery and failed to keep a string of promises he made four years ago – doubling the budget deficit to $1.2 trillion rather than halving it and barely budging joblessness after pledging to sharply lower it.

The President has tried, but his policies haven't worked,” said Mr Romney. “He's great as a speaker, and describing his plans and his vision – that's wonderful. But we have a record to look at”.

He enjoyed strong moments when attacking the President for his failure to pass, also as promised, comprehensive reform of America's immigration laws. “We're going to have to stop illegal immigration,” he said. “I will not grant amnesty to those who come here illegally.”

Responding to a voter disappointed in Mr Obama after backing him in 2008, Mr Romney restyled Ronald Reagan's famous question on whether voters were in 1980 “better off than four years ago”. Mr Romney said viewers knew “these last four years haven't been so good as the President has described”.

Yet the former Massachusetts governor promptly followed his best section by reminding voters that he had been defeated by John McCain for the party's 2008 presidential nomination and that he had offshore investments.

Attempting to point out that Mr Obama, too, had savings overseas, an exasperated Mr Romney asked: “Do you look at your pension? Do you look at your pension?” Mr Obama shot back: “I don’t look at my pension – it’s not as big as yours,” to laughter from the audience.

Attacking Mr Romney's much-vaunted “five-point plan” for the economy as a retread of George W. Bush's “failed” policies that would cost the US $5 trillion (£3.1 trillion), the President used Mr Romney's controversial business career to paint him as a friend only to the wealthy elite.

“Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan – he has a one-point plan,” said Mr Obama. “And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules”.





Del WAshington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-in-second-debate-rough-messy-fight-ends-in-draw/article/2510984

York: In second debate, rough, messy fight ends in draw

By: Byron York - Chief Political Correspondent
HEMPSTEAD, New York - Few observers believed the second presidential debate, held Tuesday night here at Hofstra University, would end as cleanly or as decisively as the first showdown between President Obama and Mitt Romney two weeks ago in Denver. And it didn't.

Where the Denver debate produced a clear victory for Romney, the Hofstra session finished in a muddle. Obama, expected to be more aggressive than in the first debate, did exactly as expected. But Romney matched the president's aggressiveness blow by blow, sometimes to the point of making viewers a little uneasy at the sight of two men who occasionally looked as if they might decide to roll up their sleeves and take the dispute outside. It was the kind of debate after which partisans on both sides argue that their man won.

Of course a muddle was a huge improvement for Obama, and the president's campaign aides knew it. Unlike in Denver, when Romney surrogates rushed to the Spin Room to discuss their candidate's victory while Team Obama remained out of sight for several minutes as they got their story together, at Hofstra it was Obama aides who raced to the Spin Room first, even before the debate had ended. They weren't hiding, and they weren't making excuses.

"The president gave a dominant performance," said campaign manager Jim Messina. "I think he was on point, I think he was strong."

"[Romney] was backpedaling all night, he looked nervous and defensive," added top adviser David Axelrod.

"[Romney] was exposed at every turn," said spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

As for reaction from Team Romney, the official interpretation of the debate seemed to be that Obama had scored on style, but not on substance. "If you ask me on style points, I think they both had strong moments," said former Senator Jim Talent, a Romney adviser. "But on the substance of it, I came away thinking Romney was stronger. The president was obviously more aggressive tonight, but he was aggressive in trying to distract attention from the same record."

Romney had one really good moment and one really bad moment. The good moment came after a man said he had voted for Obama in 2008 but was no longer as optimistic as he was then. After Obama tried to defend his record, Romney took over with a cogent, focused, and nearly perfect indictment of Obama's performance in office.

"I think you know better," Romney told the man. "I think you know that these last four years haven't been so good as the president just described, and that you don't feel like you're confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years."

Romney then ticked off the particulars: the unemployment rate, no plans to reform entitlements, no immigration reform, the deficit, Obamacare and the cost of health insurance, job creation, poverty, food stamps, Dodd-Frank, and more. "He's great as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision," Romney said of Obama. "That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at."

Romney's really bad moment came on the issue that many conservatives had been eager for him to address more forcefully, the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. The case against Obama was, frankly, pretty easy to make. In the months before the attack, the administration denied requests for more security in Libya, and then, for nearly two weeks after the attack, attributed the violence to a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video on the Internet rather than the terrorist attack officials knew it was.

In defending his actions, Obama said, "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world…that this was an act of terror." What Obama was referring to was a single line in a single speech in which he said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Now, anyone who has followed the story knows that, while Obama did utter those words once, on September 12, he spent the next two weeks condemning the video and specifically refusing to attribute the attack to terrorism. Instead of pointing that out, Romney, who was apparently unaware of Obama's September 12 remarks, treated Obama's statement as a revelation. "I want to make sure we get that on the record," Romney said, "because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

"Get the transcript," Obama said. And indeed, the transcript contained the "act of terror" remark. Romney could have made just as strong a case against Obama without tangling over that line. In the end, the discussion of Libya was something of a mess, and it appeared that most Republicans viewed Romney's treatment of the subject as an opportunity lost.

Romney's bad moment led to an even worse moment for Candy Crowley, the CNN anchor who moderated the debate. When Obama said, "Get the transcript," Crowley decided to play fact-checker and interjected that Obama had indeed said "act of terror." "He used the word -- " Crowley said.

"Can you say it a little louder, Candy?" Obama responded, looking for affirmation from the moderator.

As the crowd applauded, a clearly nervous Crowley tried to balance things out by saying to Romney, "It did, as well, take -- it did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that." It didn't make much sense, and as Romney began to get back on track, Crowley changed the subject.

In a post-debate appearance, Crowley conceded that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

Afterward, Romney's advisers didn't want to complain publicly about the job Crowley had done. But they were not happy. Some felt that Crowley had jumped into the conversation on Obama's behalf more than once, that she had allowed Obama to take more time speaking than Romney, and then, in the Libya exchange, had gone beyond the moderator's role.

But that grumbling was confined to private conversations. All one member of the Romney circle would say for public consumption was, "Sometimes you like the refs, sometimes you don't like the refs, but you play the game anyway."

And this game ended mostly in a tie. Even with the various missteps, there were no disastrous gaffes and no knockout punches. After the debate, most non-partisan observers found themselves scoring the debate on points. As with the first debate, it will take a few days to see what effect, if any, it will have on the voting public. But unlike Denver, no candidate could walk away triumphant.


Por lo visto, es un empate tecnico. Quizas algunos vean a un candidato por encima del otro, pero yo no vi un dominio tal como el del debate de Denver donde el Presi se veia opacado y a veces apenado ante las palabras del retador... Ya veremos si el Presi puede mantener esta "ofensiva" en el tercer debate, o si esto no ha sido mas que un empuje momentaneo y Denver, no Hofstra, es su condicion normal. Romney ya lleva dos debates en los que se ve fuerte, efectivo y al mando de sus facultades en presentar su caso al publico. Una semana mas para ver, como diria Don King, "La tiraera en la saguesera"...
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Un@ de l@s Pituf@s de Obama sale a lanzar fango...

Mensaje por Charlie319 Miér Oct 24, 2012 10:33 am

Gloria Alred, Abogada sensacionalista Democrata... ha salido con aun otra ocurrencia quijotesca... de algo que aunque es salaz, nada tiene que ver con las elecciones o la capacidad de Romney como gobernante... Por otro lado, habria que ver lo que dijo Michelle tras la derrota de Barrack en el 2000 que la motivo a preparar papeles de divorcio...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1061169986
Attorney backs unsealing of Romney testimony in pal’s ’87 divorce
By Laurel J. Sweet
Wednesday, October 24, 2012


In what has been billed as an “October surprise,” celebrity feminist attorney Gloria Allred arrived this morning at a Norfolk court to back the unsealing of testimony by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the 1987 divorce proceedings of one of his closest friends.

We believe the public has a right to know what Mitt Romney’s testimony was,” Allred told reporters outside Norfolk Probate & Family Court in Canton. Allred arrived with her arm around Maureen Stemberg Sullivan, the ex-wife of Staples co-founder Thomas G. Stemberg.

Sullivan, 61, of Charlestown, and Stemberg, 63, of Chestnut Hill, were involved in a notoriously nasty divorce with disputes over finances that stretched on for a decade after it was finalized. The court papers have been impounded since 1989.

Romney’s Bain Capital helped Stemberg start Staples in 1986.

Stemberg is represented in court today by attorney Brian Leary, who asked Judge Jennifer Ulwick to close the courtroom to media and the public.

“I woke up this morning to find all sorts of stories on blogs,” Leary told Ulwick. “That sort of damaging and salacious detail is just the thing we’re trying to guard against.”

Stemberg is now a managing general partner of Highland Capital Partners in Lexington. His spokesman, George Regan, said Stemberg is prohibited from commenting on the case “because of a longstanding gag order related to this case.”

The Romney campaign did not immediately comment. The former Massachusetts governor is represented this morning by attorney Robert Jones, who did not object to an open courtroom.

Sera interesante ver si el juez considera esto una solicitud frivola o no...
O si le dice: - La mia con Tostones y una cervecita fria...

Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Evitando que Sandy se parezca a Katrina...

Mensaje por Charlie319 Mar Oct 30, 2012 1:12 pm

Esta tormenta es una oportunidad para el presi de ponerse al dia contra Romney... Pero si laSandy resulta ser como Katrina, y hoy parece que ese es el caso, se le puede complicar el panorama.

Potential and risk for Obama's Hurricane Sandy response
By: Jennifer Epstein
October 29, 2012 01:17 PM EDT
With just eight days until Election Day, President Barack Obama put himself forward Monday as the leader in the time of crisis as he briefed the nation Monday on preparations for Hurricane Sandy.
It’s a move with huge potential — and huge risk.


Obama’s appearance could help sew up voters ahead of next Tuesday. But with flooding and power outages about to interrupt the lives of millions, Obama could also risk a backlash if frustrations build about the federal government’s response.

Speaking from the White House briefing room on Monday, Obama attempted to set expectations ahead of just that outcome: His administration is doing all it can to prepare for the storm, but that the response will take time.
Obama stressed that he is focused on Americans’ safety — and not on the presidential election — even as he delivered remarks aimed at priming the political atmosphere for the kind of post-storm aftermath that could hurt his reelection chances.

“I am not worried at this point about the impact on the election,” Obama said in a midday statement, responding to a reporter’s shouted question. “I’m worried about the impact on families and I’m worried about the impact on first responders. I’m worried about the impact on the economy and on transportation.”
“You know, the election will take care of itself next week,” he continued. “Right now, our No. 1 priority is to make sure that we’re saving lives, that our search-and-rescue teams are going to be in place, that people are going to get the food, water and shelter they need in case of emergency and that we respond as quickly as possible to get the economy back on track.”
The president’s remarks came after his campaign manager, Jim Messina, conveyed a similar message to reporters: That the Obama is concerned about safety above all else.
“The president’s focus is on the storm and governing the country and making sure our people our safe and we continue to believe that on the ground we are going to be able to turn out our voters in these final days,” Messina said. “We feel very good about our ground game. We just want everyone up there and across the country to be very safe and there’s time for politics, but right now we have to focus on what we have to do on the storm, that’s what the president is doing.”

From the White House, Obama said he has been in contact with the governors of all the states expected to be affected, and urged residents to pay attention to their local authorities.
“Please listen to what your state and local officials are saying. When they tell you to evacuate, you need to evacuate,” Obama said. “Do not delay, don’t pause, don’t question the instructions that are being given, because this is a serious storm and could potentially have fatal consequences if people haven’t acted.”
Obama’s remarks came as Sandy, which he described as “a big and powerful storm,” got closer to making landfall along the East Coast on Monday afternoon.
“Right now, the key is to make sure that the public is following instructions” coming from state and local officials, he said.
Because of the nature of this storm, we are certain that this is going to be a slow-moving process through a wide swath of the country,” Obama said, but the federal government has already pre-positioned Federal Emergency Management Agency assets and is working with state and local governments on preparations and the post-storm response.
“We’re confident that the assets are pre-positioned for an effective response in the aftermath of the strong,” he said. But once the storm has passed, “there are going to be a lot of backlogs” in restoring transportation and electricity.
The storm has put a crimp in the president’s campaign plans. With barely more than a week until Election Day, Obama traveled to Orlando, Fla., on Sunday night ahead of a rally that had been set for Monday morning. But citing the coming storm, the president returned to the White House late Monday morning to monitor the emergency response. His campaign also canceled a planned appearance in Wisconsin on Tuesday.
Once back at the White House, Obama led a briefing on storm preparations with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate and National Hurricane Center Director Richard Knabb.
Former President Bill Clinton, who had been scheduled to join Obama at the Orlando rally, took the stage solo and is set to join Vice President Joe Biden at an afternoon rally in Youngstown, Ohio. Clinton is set to continue to campaign in Minnesota on Tuesday, and in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Wisconsin later in the week.
Obama’s campaign travel for Tuesday has also been canceled, and the president suggested Sunday that his time off the trail would put more pressure on his campaign volunteers.
“I hate to put the burden of the entire world on you, but basically it’s all up to you,” the president said Sunday night during a visit to a field office in Orlando.
Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty El drama que nadie esta atendiendo: El Senado

Mensaje por Charlie319 Dom Nov 04, 2012 1:29 pm

El Senado es el verdadero premio para los Republicanos... En el sistema gringo el legislativo propone y pasa las leyes y el ejecutivo las firma o las veta. Con 33 o 34 curules en el senado en juego, 23 de ellos ocupados por democratas, este es el premio mas jugoso del 2012. Igualmente en la camara, hay una serie de oportunidades.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-house-control-20121104,0,2383583.story


Democrats' hope of retaking House fades in polarized campaign
Republicans are expected to retain control after a race that's left little room for moderates in either party.

By Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau

November 4, 2012, 1:00 a.m.
METTER, Ga. — Early on a Saturday morning, four-term Rep. John Barrow, one of a dwindling number of moderate Democrats in Congress, sat down for coffee and biscuits with constituents as he campaigned in his party's uphill drive to retake the House.

His audience was as small as his prospects for finding votes in southeastern Georgia. Of the two men who showed up, one was a Republican who asked why the Harvard-educated lawyer didn't just switch parties. Barrow is the last white Democrat from the Deep South running for reelection.

"I'm trying to show folks on my side of the aisle how to vote," said Barrow, who in one television ad cocks a rifle to show his commitment to the 2nd Amendment and displays a pistol he said his grandfather brandished to help stop a lynching.

Republicans are expected to retain control of the House, in large part because there is little room left in either party for middle-of-the-road lawmakers such as Barrow. The so-called Blue Dog Democrat is running against Lee Anderson, a farmer and conservative state legislator who calls President Obama a socialist.

Democratic hopes for a takeover have faded as races tightened in the final weeks. Underlying this election is a polarized political climate, as well as newly drawn congressional boundaries. The redrawn districts shored up Republican-held seats and largely ceded cities to Democrats, which has put the party on track to have the most diverse caucus ever, the first without a white-male majority.

Tuesday's outcome is likely to send to Washington a large freshman class that would make the House even more deeply divided ideologically. "We're headed for the most polarized Congress in history," said David Wasserman, the House analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "Blue Dogs are shrinking and the tea party continues to grow."

The battle for control of the House is playing out beyond the swing states targeted by Obama and Republican Mitt Romney — in the so-called orphan states of California, Illinois and New York, which are Democratic strongholds.

Democrats are certain to flip some seats in these states, primarily by targeting Republicans in districts that Obama won in 2008. And they have their sights on others: Michigan hay farmer Gary McDowell is running against Republican freshman Dan Benishek, a physician, in the Upper Peninsula; and former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack is challenging conservative firebrand Rep. Steve King.

And some Republicans have encountered hurdles of their own. Tea party favorites Michele Bachmann in Minnesota and Allen West in Florida are in tough reelection battles as opponents criticize their lightning-rod national profiles.

But a Republican strategy to target the remaining moderate Democrats, who are largely in the Southern states, leaves Democrats likely to fall short of the 25 seats needed to win back the majority.

Barrow's fellow Blue Dogs in Arkansas and North Carolina are retiring. Two others in the Tar Heel State are in close reelection battles. Republican Mia Love, mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, poses a challenge to Rep. Jim Matheson, who is a leader of the Blue Dogs.

Wasserman and other analysts have downgraded Democratic prospects, saying they'll gain at most a handful of seats.

"These races are so close," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader from San Francisco who is positioned to wield the speaker's gavel again if her party regains control. "Every day is like an opening of a new scene in each of the races."

House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio launched a home-state bus tour Saturday to promote the entire Republican ticket.

Boehner has struggled to corral House Republicans since becoming speaker with the 2010 tea party wave, which brought a record 87 GOP freshmen in a sweep unseen since the New Deal.

Most of those freshmen will return, their districts secure for the next few years. Republicans pushed state legislatures during the redistricting process not so much for new districts that favored them, but for hardening existing ones.

Among the changes is a new district in Columbus, Ohio, that tilts Democratic, but also two seats in the suburbs that are safer for Republicans.

At the same time moderate Democrats are threatened, the remaining Republican moderates are also being squeezed. Maryland's Roscoe G. Bartlett is now in a more Democratic district, jeopardizing his hopes for an 11th term. Republican Rep. Charles Bass has a tough race in the Democratic-leaning western side of New Hampshire.

Although Democrats will gain the most diversity, one outlier is Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, a socially moderate fiscal conservative who could become the only openly gay Republican in the House.

As candidates make the final push, their messages mostly mirror those in the presidential campaign — Democrats warn that Republicans will end Medicare and give tax breaks to the wealthy; Republicans argue Democrats will raise taxes and over-expand the social safety net. Wasserman said this means that for voters, the election is more a choice over party control than "who they think will best fix their streetlights."

For Barrow, that Saturday morning restaurant stop was the first on a daylong trek to small towns, as he worked to solidify support among voters who know him and to meet others in the now-Republican-heavy district who don't.

Barrow is doing better than expected against the unpracticed Anderson, a large man with silver swept-back hair and a trim mustache who is slow-spoken on the stump. But Anderson's team has plastered the district with his unusual campaign poster — a tractor with the slogan "Conservative for Congress" — which is about all he has to say as he aims to strengthen the Republican hold on the Deep South, and with it, the House.

Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Que mas se puede decir de estas elecciones????

Mensaje por Charlie319 Mar Nov 06, 2012 11:43 am

Charlie319
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

https://careoboricua.foroactivo.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012  Empty Re: Las elecciones federales camino a noviembre del 2012

Mensaje por Contenido patrocinado


Contenido patrocinado


Volver arriba Ir abajo

Volver arriba

- Temas similares

 
Permisos de este foro:
No puedes responder a temas en este foro.