Campaign 2012: A Tale Of Two Counties

Mitt Romney speech SC Campaign 2012: A Tale of Two Counties

The first warning flags that Mitt Romney may not be the strong general election candidate the Republican Party establishment sold him as were spotted on March 6th, otherwise known as Super Tuesday.

Though numerous states held contests that day, it was Ohio that was considered the big prize. Rick Santorum had almost defeated Romney in Michigan, one of his home states (it was so close that they essentially split the delegates). With Santorum surging in Oklahoma and Tennessee, Newt Gingrich poised to win his home state of Georgia, and Virginia written off after most Republican candidates failed to qualify for the ballot, all eyes were on the Buckeye state.

Especially since no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.

With an army of nationally-known conservative leaders lining up behind him and several conservative southern states still to come on the primary calendar, Ohio was Santorum’s shot to upset the party establishment’s best laid plans if he could win the crucial battleground state.

And he almost did.

Despite being out-spent in the state 10-to-1, Santorum lost Ohio by just 10,288 votes in a primary with more than 1.2 million voters. Why was that election so close, and how was Romney able to win?

The state of Ohio has 88 counties, but Romney only won 19 of them on primary night. Romney won the Ohio primary, although he won just 22% of the counties in the state. It’s where Romney won that tells the tale.

Romney won Cuyahoga County by 16,029 votes. Romney won Hamilton County by 15,653 votes. In other words, Romney’s margin of victory in those two counties was over 50% higher than his overall margin for victory in the whole state. If you were to remove those two counties from the total tally, Santorum would’ve won Ohio by over 21,000 votes—or twice what Romney actually won the state by. And had Santorum won Ohio, Romney might not be the nominee today.

While Romney’s campaign is fortunate that the vote in Cuyahoga and Hamilton Counties was counted on Super Tuesday, come November 6th they’ll likely have a different opinion. That’s because in 2008, President Obama received 650,638 votes in those two counties alone, which accounted for one-fourth of the total vote he received in beating John McCain for Ohio’s 20 vital Electoral College votes. Furthermore, all but 5 of the 18 counties won by Romney in the 2012 Ohio primary were won by Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

Now you know why polls show Romney’s chances of winning Ohio are fading. But this isn’t just true of Ohio. How about the aforementioned Michigan primary? Romney won Michigan by 32,378 votes over Santorum with about 975,000 total votes cast. Romney’s win was largely attributable to a 31,565 vote margin in one county—Oakland County. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won Oakland County by 15 points! Romney’s second-biggest margin for victory in Michigan came in Wayne County, where Obama received 74% of the vote in the 2008 presidential election.

Translation: Romney won arguably the two most crucial Republican primaries (and thus the nomination) by winning where Democrats win. Not swing counties, but Democrat counties. For Romney to win the presidency without winning Ohio, he’ll have to win Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa (or he can lose Wisconsin, Colorado, or Iowa if he wins New Hampshire).

A Republican hasn’t done that since Ronald Reagan’s historic landslide in 1984.

 

You can friend Steve Deace on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow. To learn more about his nationally-syndicated radio program, visit www.stevedeace.com

Why Tom Smith’s Campaign Is A Sign Of Trouble For Obama In Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania SC Why Tom Smith’s campaign is a sign of trouble for Obama in Pennsylvania

During the lead-up to the Senate vote on Obamacare, all eyes were on a few rare Democrats who pro-lifers hoped would stand up against the Democrats’ culture of death and vote NO because of the sections mandating faith-based hospitals to commit abortions.

Pennsylvania Democrat Senator and putative Catholic Bob Casey was one of those quislings who talked a good game about being pro-life but ultimately became the 60th and decisive vote to pass Obamacare. By doing this, Casey forced his church, the Roman Catholic Church, to face either closing its hospitals or knuckling under and committing abortions.

In 2006, Casey had cruised to a smashing 18 point victory over a genuine pro-life lion and fellow Catholic Rick Santorum, a two-term Republican incumbent. In a victory that large, there are always a number of reasons to point to; but Casey’s standing as his father Bob Casey Sr.’s son ( a popular pro-lifer) was a large factor in his win. Pro-life Pennsylvanians voted for Casey “secure” in the belief that they could vote for him without losing a fighter of their cause.

Now six years later, Bob Casey has a 44% pro-life rating, and he will be called to account for what he has done.

Enter Tom Smith, his Republican challenger. Democrat-skewed polls aside, a new survey of likely voters has Smith trailing Casey by just 49/42 , just outside the margin of error. Smith has improved on Santorum’s margin by 11 points.  Why?

At 53%, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the second highest percentage of Catholics in the nation. The Catholic Church is in an all-out battle with Barack Obama over Obamacare’s abortion mandate. Both of these factors will join with Obama’s war on coal and the photo ID law which has been on-again, off-again that at this point has eaten through six months of the Democrats’ irreplaceable time to register their people.

With Tom Smith closing on Casey and his own war on the Catholic Church and the Coal Industry, how confident can Barack Obama be about his chances in Pennsylvania?

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Photo credit: J. Stephen Conn (Creative Commons)

With Friends Like Fox, Who Needs Liberal Media?

Fox News channel SC With friends like Fox, who needs liberal media?

Since its debut in 1996, we conservatives have seen Fox News as our sanctuary from the hostility and bias prevalent for decades in the liberal media.

Why wouldn’t we? The brainchild of longtime Republican media consultant Roger Ailes, Fox was willing to air content often ignored by the rest of the news media,and give a voice to conservative punditry other networks didn’t want to admit existed. Fox seemed to treat institutions and ideals we conservatives hold dear with a respect and benefit of the doubt we rarely received elsewhere.

That is starting to change.

It first became noticeable during the past two presidential campaign cycles, when I was inundated with e-mails and social media messages from conservatives (especially social conservatives) telling me they had to watch CNN and MSNBC to get unbiased coverage of the Republican primary, because Fox was perceived by these people as being in the tank for Mitt Romney.

Remember when Rick Santorum accused Fox News of “shilling for (Romney) every day?” Newt Gingrich also said, “I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through…We are more likely to get neutral coverage on CNN than we are Fox.”

Read More at USA Today. By Steve Deace.

Photo Credit: ario_ Creative Commons

The Silence Of Bill And Hillary Clinton

Bill and Hillary Clinton SC The Silence Of Bill And Hillary Clinton

Editor’s note: A different version of this article first appeared at National Catholic Register.

Bill Clinton was basking in glory at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night. Few presidents so love the spotlight. The occasion for Clinton, however, was not himself, but the reelection of Barack Obama.

To that end, Clinton’s stumping for Obama presents some interesting contrasts, as the press has noted. Quite unnoticed, however, is a particularly compelling contrast relating to religious freedom—an area where Barack Obama has been a foe, most notably via his terribly intolerant Health and Human Services mandate, and where Bill Clinton has been woefully silent.

For Bill Clinton—and for his wife, Hillary Clinton—that silence is conspicuous. Indeed, it may surprise readers to learn this, but both Clintons have been vigorous defenders of religious freedom. First consider Bill Clinton:

As Clinton stated in his memoirs: “I always felt that protecting religious liberty and making the White House accessible to all religious faiths was an important part of my job.” As president, Clinton practiced what he preached. He championed (among others) the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed 97-3 by the Senate) and the 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. As to the former, Clinton signed it “to protect a reasonable range of religious expression in public areas like schools and workplaces.”

Pointing to these actions and more, my colleague, Dr. Gary Smith, who has studied Bill Clinton’s faith, has rightly described the former president as a “strong advocate” of “religious freedom at home and abroad.”

That’s fair to say. It is likewise true for Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton long supported her husband’s 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, especially its promotion of religious freedom in public schools. In her book, “It Takes a Village,” Mrs. Clinton sounded like a conservative when emphasizing the importance of religion in schools. Quoting her husband, she noted that “nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door.” She cited these words from her husband: “[R]eligion is too important in our history and our heritage for us to keep it out of our schools.”

Once capable of making law herself, as an elected senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton championed an initiative promoting religious freedom in the workplace. Specifically, in April 2005, Senator Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, joining forces (remarkably) with no less than Senator Rick Santorum, her polar opposite. The law guaranteed the right to religious expression on the job without fear of recrimination. This meant, for example, that an Orthodox Jew who honors the Sabbath cannot be forced to work on the Sabbath against his or her will, or that a Christian can wear a crucifix, or that a Sikh can don a turban. Backers of the bill included a broad coalition of 40 clerics representing nearly every denomination.

The bill, which any reasonable person would support, had opponents among Senator Clinton’s staunchest allies. Predictably, Planned Parenthood and the National Women’s Law Center foresaw calamitous instances of “anti-choice” injustice, such as a situation where a pro-life nurse might request to not provide the “morning-after” pill to a rape victim, or a Catholic pharmacist might as a matter of conscience refuse to dispense birth control. For these “pro-choice” feminists, religious freedom could not be permitted to trump their preeminent freedom: their sacred right to an abortion.

It was this narrow opposition from radical feminists that might have explained why, as the Village Voice put it, “[Mrs.] Clinton’s office has been notably quiet about her involvement” in the bill.

That was then. Today, Mrs. Clinton serves in the Obama administration—though at the State Department, not the Department of Health and Human Services. And today, Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, is silent on the Obama HHS mandate.

Indeed, that begs the question: Where are the Clintons now, as the current head of their party, President Obama, continues to stubbornly enforce his HHS mandate requiring all Americans of every religious belief and denomination to forcibly fund abortion drugs? Have these fighters for religious freedom said anything at all to the president? Have they voiced even a slight objection? To the contrary, in his glowing endorsement of Obama at the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton gushed about Obamacare, with no mention of the HHS mandate.

For that matter, where are the Clintons on Barack Obama’s unprecedented presidential attempt to redefine marriage, which President Bill Clinton once preserved as between a man and a woman when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996?

Or, in the end, are Bill and Hillary Clinton merely two more blindly loyal liberals and partisan Democrats who unquestioningly follow their party’s leader?

Some things are more important than your political party.

Photo credit: InSapphoWeTrust (Creative Commons)

Culture War – Or Spiritual Wickedness In High Places?

Todd Akin SC Culture War   Or Spiritual Wickedness in High Places?

Conservative hawks may want Rep. Todd Akin scrubbed from the ticket even as religious leaders and those voicing the social issues in this election cycle are defending Akin or at least not attacking him.

Is it because contributions may flounder or because even the GOP is phobic about the so-called ‘hot button issues’? It seems that while MSNBC is always the perennial least-watched news outlet, they still keep the other news organizations slightly off-center and on the defensive. While all news agencies and networks have addressed the social issues, MSNBC is the most vociferous and the most prone to tantrum.

The fact that fertility doctors and gynecologists have included a regimen of stress-reducing pharmaceuticals and behavior adjustment therapies to women to ease tension, which in turn increases the chances for a pregnancy, does not seem to matter to anyone. It is politics, fundraising problems, and the scary social issues that seem to be fueling the push to throw Akin under the bus. Akin’s expressed view is dismissed out of hand. It is obviously expedient for the GOP campaign, but it can hardly qualify as completely honest.

The larger problem is that any social issues are now labeled as ‘extreme’, and no one wants to risk stirring up a nest of angry liberals and their MSM mouthpieces. If jobs and the economy were in fact the only problems the nation faces, all of this suppression of the social issues would be reasonable, but it is not.

Church leaders are viewing the social issues, which they more honestly refer to as ‘moral issues’, very seriously. Vision America’s Rick Scarborough is calling for Christians to spend forty days fasting and praying in conjunction with the 2012 elections. With religious freedoms under attack and immorality increasing exponentially, Scarborough is leading several others in the plight to help Americans to first see and then repent of the deadly trek toward their own destruction.

Anne Gimenez, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Dave Butts, Janet Porter, and Mat Staver are among the leaders, and churches and faith-based organizations are getting onboard the movement with great enthusiasm. Many solid, scripturally-based faiths have concluded that too many warnings of scripture about what precipitates the fall of nations are being ignored and openly scoffed at by Americans today.

The organizations are not trying to downplay the economic downturn of the nation but are trying to increase the awareness of the connection between a nation’s economic well-being and its morality.

It hardly seems honest or the slightest bit fair to show voters the dismal record of Barack Obama in creating jobs or increasing growth in the economy without also noting that he has walked the nation into a moral morass by proclaiming that same sex marriage is OK and the gay lifestyle is just another trendy little turn that puts everyone who disagrees with it on the wrong side of history. Dare we mention that Mr. Obama is also on the side of adding yet more deaths to the abortion industry’s now 54,000,000 deaths already served?

We are supportive of every effort of churches and conservative politicians to revive America. Speeches by Rick Santorum, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Ryan have stirred us at the GOP Convention, but all the best efforts are nothing unless ‘we the people’ start to take our connection to the God of our fathers seriously once again.

Faith groups are declaring what should be obvious; but for the political class in either camp, it is not. Both churches and individuals are encouraged to sign up to the effort, which is called “40 Day’s to save America.”

It is naiveté of the highest order to think that the economy and growth are the only serious issues of the day or of this important 2012 campaign. Hundreds of Bible passages and all the best wisdom of our founding fathers and today’s best statesmen declare that moral issues alone can break the back of a nation. The fight is not just a ‘hot button issue’ or an ‘extreme’ political position. It is a battle on a much higher scale, and it is the head of the important matters of state, not the tail. To wit:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of columnist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Rick Santorum RNC Full Speech

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum took to the stage at the Republican National Convention, after presenting the strongest competition that Mitt Romney faced in the 2012 GOP primaries, to endorse the former Massachusetts governor to be the next president.

Santorum Criticizes Obama On Welfare Reform

Rick Santorum SC Santorum Criticizes Obama On Welfare Reform

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Rick Santorum was one of Mitt Romney’s toughest foes during the GOP presidential race, but the former Pennsylvania senator plans to help Romney appeal to the party’s conservative base when he addresses the Republican National Convention.

His speech Tuesday is expected to focus on welfare reform and charges that President Barack Obama wants to undermine welfare work requirements.

Read More at OfficialWire.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Santorum: Obama Acted In ‘Contempt For The Law And The Constitution’

Rick Santorum 5 SC Santorum: Obama acted in ‘Contempt for the law and the constitution’

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., one of the key architects of the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform law, said today on a conference call that President Obama acted in “absolute contempt for the law and the constitution” when he changed federal welfare policy last month.

“Welfare reform was premised on two basic things,” Santorum said. “We are going to put in a tough work requirement and we are going to put time limits. We believed in them so firmly that we were not going to allow the governors or future administrations to change this by fiat or executive order or regulations.”

But, Santorum claims, that is exactly what a memo issued last month by Obama’s Health and Human Services Department does.

“This president is obviously orientating his administration to weaken this work requirement and potentially gut this work requirement,” Santorum explained. “The only question is by how much and how quickly.”

Santorum was also completely dismissive of the idea that Obama only issued the memo so that he could strengthen the welfare work requirements. “The idea that they are going to strengthen this work requirement is absurd. … When you look at the fact that this president waived the work requirement on food stamps in 2009, has increased the amount of government dependency … you are seeing a pattern here.”

Read More at The Washington Examiner. By Conn Carroll.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Tea Party’s Cruz Looks Poised For Texas Triumph

Texas Map 2 SC Tea party’s Cruz looks poised for Texas triumph

HOUSTON — Ted Cruz is on the cusp of a win in the Texas Republican Senate runoff that would shatter conventional campaign wisdom and elevate him as one of the brightest stars of the tea party generation.

Even some of his aides concede privately they never thought it could happen.

Yet in the closing days of this dead-of-summer contest in a sprawling superstate, Cruz’s flinty campaign had all the trappings of a celebration, with the 41-year-old constitutional lawyer being feted by the country’s most prominent conservatives, including Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and Sens. Jim DeMint and Rand Paul.

“We’re on the 2-yard line. We have marched the entire length of the field. We started out up in the hot dog stands,” Cruz joked Friday evening in a suburban park where hundreds flocked to see Palin. “But we are facing a battle to push it those final two yards. Do the grass roots matter? This race is the test for that proposition.”

Despite being outspent more than 3-to-1, having never run for office and being tasked with penetrating the Lone Star State’s 20 media markets with virtually zero name recognition, Cruz is well positioned to upset Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst Tuesday. It’s a scenario that would send shockwaves through the political elite and embolden the thousands of conservatives from across the country who have descended here to help push him over the finish line.

Read More at politico.com. By David Catanese.

Santorum: Obama A ‘Two-Bit Dictator’

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum says Barack Obama is “like a two-bit dictator”,compares him to Fascist Benito Mussolini during an interview with ABC.