Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Save Your Money

If any sportsman or wildlife supporter has listened to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund's stupid radio commercial taking on Deb Fischer's involvement in the Snake River property issue, they should immediately cease giving to this group of wackos.

Likewise, while we have fly fishing members on our staff, we also disavow the Nebraska Chapter of Trout Unlimited's endorsement of moving the Keystone Pipeline yet again.  

Save your dollars with both of these organizations.  

Ad Watch (Fischer): Stand Up

While Bob Kerrey and his scumbag consultant Paul Johnson run their negative ads we have a candidate that tells the truth using Bob Kerrey's own words not innuendo and lies.

Trick or Treat???????


Let's Talk About Your Character Bob Kerrey -- Tim O'Dell

Based upon his horrible attacks against our Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer, it appears former Senator Bob Kerrey, who has lived in New York the last 12 years, wants to make this race about character. 
 
Let's do it Bob. Let's talk about how you treated Chuck Hassebrook when last February you first told him that you would support him for his run for the Senate, then, just a few days later, you announced that you were coming back from New York to run for the seat yourself. While politically stabbing Mr. Hassebrook in the back, you also prevented him from running for re-election to his Nebraska Regent seat because the filing date had passed. Then you and other democrats forced Mr. Hassebrook out of the Senate race so you would have a clear field in the primary. Who would do that to a fellow Nebraskan? Yup, someone from New York!
 
Why would Nebraskans trust someone from New York who only appears to be coming back to Nebraska to steal a Senate seat and then return to New York?
 
Additionally, your record in the Senate did not reflect Nebraska values. In 1993, while a majority of Nebraskans did not support Bill Clinton's largest tax increase in history, you voted for it! Sounds just like Ben Nelson who voted for Obama care while a majority of Nebraskans did not support it. You also said you would not vote to repeal Obama care. We don't need this!
 
You voted against a ban of partial-birth abortion, you voted against a balanced budget amendment and by your own admission you support higher taxes. 
 
When you returned from New York to run for a Nebraska Senate seat, you admitted to the people of Nebraska that you made a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And, when asked about the deal during an interview with Nebraska Watchdog, you said, "I won't tell you." In reference to your interview on a local radio show, you will not honestly tell Nebraskans where you will live after the election. I think I know, it will not be Nebraska.
 
Nebraskans do not forget your vicious attacks on businesswoman Jan Stoney in 1994. You are back to your old tricks in attacking and questioning the character of Nebraska rancher Deb Fischer. Your tactics might still work in New York, but they no longer work in Nebraska.
 
I will send you my message again on November 6th when I vote for real Nebraskan Deb Fischer for US Senate and I suspect a majority of Nebraskans will do the same. If you want to serve in the US Senate, do it from your own state Bob. New York!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim O'Dell is a contributor to the Objective Conservative and also the First Congressional District Chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Ad Watch (Romney): RNC TV Ad: "Obamacare"

Here is a new ad from the Republican National Committee telling the truth about Obamacare.

Ad Watch (Bob Kerrey): Government On Our Backs NE

Probably not the best ad we've ever seen but a new one against Bob Kerrey by a new player, FaithFamily Freedom Fund.

Who is Talking Social Issues?

As our readers, few as they may be, know, we like Stu Rothenberg.  He has an interesting observation that Democrats, unable to win the battle on the economy, are now attacking Republicans, sometimes with the help of their Republican opponents who seem to have diarrhea of the mouth.

Worth the read:

The Economy Is Crumbling So Let’s Talk Abortion and Rape


"The unemployment rate is still 7.8 percent, and the gross domestic product is growing at a sluggish 2 percent. Young people graduating college can’t find jobs and are living in their parents’ houses. Economies in Europe and Asia are weakening, suggesting additional problems in the year ahead for the U.S. economy.

And Democratic candidates, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the House Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to electing Democrats to the House, are running ads on abortion, Planned Parenthood funding and stem cell research.

For the past couple of months, Democratic strategists have been trying to prosecute a case against the Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) budget and Medicare, charging that Mitt Romney and GOP Congressional candidates support tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor and programs that the middle class has come to depend on.

To a large extent, voters haven’t bought the Democratic message, which is why the party won’t make significant gains in the House. It is also why President Barack Obama is in a very tight race for re-election.

To reach swing voters, many Democratic strategists have returned to one of the party’s reliable themes: Republicans want to stop women from having access to legal abortion and to destroy Planned Parenthood, and they are so extreme that they oppose stem cell research that could save lives or help the seriously ill.

These kinds of ads have been run by Kathy Boockvar (D) against Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa,), former Rep. Dan Maffei (D) against Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) and Julian Schreibman (D) against Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.).
They have also been run by the DCCC against Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), Washington open-seat hopeful John Koster (R), Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.).

In Texas, the House Majority PAC is running a TV spot against freshman GOP Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco that asserts that he supports the “personhood bill,” which prevents in vitro fertilization and will deny some people the ability to have a child. “Congressman Canseco thinks he can decide who can have a baby and who can’t,” a young woman says in the spot.

In Colorado, a House Majority PAC 60-second spot against Coffman is particularly noteworthy and, yes, controversial. It features a young man who, talking to camera, says that next year he will be “in a car accident” and will be “paralyzed for the rest of his life.” Next, a woman says “in 20 years, I’ll have Alzheimer’s,” and then a child says that “next week” her parents are going to find out she has diabetes.

The ad goes on to assert that Coffman opposes stem cell research. “Why would Mr. Coffman bet my life that he knows best?” the woman asks. “How come he gets to decide who lives and who dies?” the child asks later in the spot.

The House Majority PAC spots are either touching and brilliant or despicable and desperate. You decide. In any case, they open the door to right-to-life groups countering with equally emotional and manipulative ads that feature children saying how happy they are that they weren’t aborted.

Of course, it isn’t only in House races that Democrats are using abortion and other cultural issues. In Northern Virginia, abortion is featured prominently in TV ads supporting Obama and Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine.

It wasn’t that long ago — four years to be exact — that Democrats were rolling their eyes over conservatives’ use of those same kinds of issues, insisting that with the financial crisis and slowing economy Republicans were wasting their time dwelling on abortion and gay marriage.

As the Los Angeles Times editorialized on Sept. 18, 2008: “A raft of issues will confront the next president: the faltering economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, a resurgent Russia, gaps in health insurance, energy policy and climate change. Especially after this week’s turmoil in the financial markets, it’s bizarre to suggest that this election should turn on abortion, same-sex marriage or the relationship between church and state.”

While Democrats have jumped all over social issues, some Republicans have aided and abetted Democrats in raising the themes and portraying the Republican Party as being extreme.

Republican Senate candidates Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, who looked like easy winners, have proved to be so insensitive and politically inept that they have helped interject rape and social issues into their own campaigns as well as the campaigns of others.

Akin and Mourdock are both pro-life, and that isn’t a liability in Missouri and Indiana. But sounding unsympathetic to victims of rape is another story, and whatever their true feelings, both Republicans sounded incredibly ill-informed and even cruel.

And then there is Coffman, the Colorado Republican whom I have already mentioned as a target of attacks on abortion. Earlier this year, Coffman said that in Obama’s heart, he “is not an American, He’s not an American.”

Abortion is an important issue to many. The same holds for stem cell research and same-sex marriage. They were always going to have some role in the 2012 elections. But with choices on taxes, spending, the budget deficit and entitlements staring the electorate in the face, it’s interesting that so many Democratic ads are focusing on cultural issues and so many Republicans are fumbling around with them."
Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.

Video of the Day: Wasteful Govenment Spending

This video brought to us by Frank McCaffrey provides just a small example of where government waste can be cut.

Amendment 3: ATrojan Horse

We've already opined on this but now there is an advertisement out there that expresses our feelings so we share it with you as well.   We continue to advocate that citizens of Nebraska vote against Amendment 3 and extending term limits.

The Determinators Movie

We wanted to share this movie, yes, it is a movie of about 58 minutes.   It was produced by the Tea Party Patriots and deals with what will ultimately be Obamacare's ramifications.   It begins with the story of an Oregon woman that is offered 'comfort care' (assisted suicide) in lieu of cancer treatment...   This will be the reality of Obamacare, death panels and cost controls.

A message to Black Christians:Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians

Bishop E.W. Jackson tells it the way it is when it comes to Blacks being used by the Democrat Party.

Monday, October 29, 2012

When It Comes To Character, Bob Kerrey Has No Reason to Criticize -- Patrick McPherson

As we continue to hear Bob Kerrey’s barrage of anti-Fischer ads questioning her character, we wonder why candidate Kerrey’s character goes unchallenged? We wonder why the local news media, particularly the Omaha World-Herald,  has given Kerrey a pass on character? Certainly, the Deb Fischer campaign has taken the high road by not attacking Kerrey’s character while being placed in a perpetual need to explain how a land suit with a neighbor potentially defines her’s.

Well, we think it’s time to talk about Bob Kerrey’s character even if Fischer won’t. We think in an era when we see press and even C.I.A. and government cover-ups and misstatements aimed at protecting liberals that it is time to do so.  We think that when soldiers who 'abuse' detainees at Abu Ghraib are serverely punished that it might just be time to look at Bob Kerrey's character.

So, let’s talk about Bob Kerrey and his character as revealed to the public only a short eleven years ago. Let’s talk about the character of Bob Kerrey as revealed by his actions on February 25, 1969 in a place in Vietnam in a hamlet called Thanh Phong where 13 unarmed women and children were killed by Kerrey and his SEAL team.

Before we do this, let’s make it clear. Bob Kerrey lost a portion of a leg in a subsequent battle in Vietnam. He deserves the credit that is due him for fighting for our country.

But, one’s good deeds are often tainted by other actions in one’s life. Doing good, becoming a hero doesn’t excuse one from his other actions, from potential war crimes.. And, certainly, Bob Kerrey’s actions on that infamous night in Vietnam may just be a reason, a much more serious reason than some alleged land transaction, to ask questions of his character and his fitness to represent Nebraskans again after the revelations that have surfaced since his last serving his state in an elected position.

Much of what we know of Kerrey’s actions come to us via a 60 Minutes II expose of about 10 years ago and a New York Times investigation published April 25,2001 (see
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/magazine/25KERREY.html?pagewanted=all). While both of the investigations would have been the first to raise the actions of Kerrey in Thanh Phong, Kerrey made extraordinary efforts to leak his version of the story to the Omaha World-Herald and to the Wall Street Journal prior to their airing or printing. It should also be noted that Newsweek had the story nearly two years earlier but chose not to publish it although Gregory Vistica was pursuing it at the time. He subsequently left Newsweek and went with the New York Times and was the author of the story that Kerrey tried to pre-empt with his own.

Enough of the background, but here is what we learned early in Vitisca’s story:

“Pulling the documents within inches of his eyes (Kerrey’s), he read intently about his time as a member of the Navy Seals and about a mission in 1969 that somehow went horribly wrong. As an inexperienced, 25-year-old lieutenant, Kerrey led a commando team on a raid in an isolated peasant hamlet called Thanh Phone in Vietnam’s Eastern Mekong Delta. While witnesses and official records give varying accounts of exactly what happened, one thing is certain: around midnight of February 25, 1969, Kerrey and his men killed at least 13 unarmed women and children. The operation was brutal; for months afterward, Kerrey says, he feared going to sleep because of the terrible nightmares that haunted him.”

Kerrey subsequently told Vitisca, “It’s far more than guilt. It’s the shame. You can never get away from it. It darkens your day.”

For the most part, knowledge of what happened that night in Vietnam appears to have been covered up by a military that subsequently had to face the even more horrendous murders by Lt. William L. Calley, Jr. in My Lai. Kerrey’s reports never mentioned the killing of women and children. In fact, it was only the persistence of Vistica who says he examined thousands of pages of classified and unclassified SEALS reports and communiqués that had been boxed up since the wary in Navy archives that brought much of this to light.

Without going into lots of diatribe, we thought we’d share some of the quotes from the New York Times interview with Kerrey:
  • “Part of living with the memory, some of those memories, is to forget them. I’ve got a right to say to you it’s none of your damned business. I carry memories of what I did, and I survive and live based upon lots of different mechanisms.”
  • “The only motivating fear I have is that someday I will face my maker. The opinion of other human beings matters, but the less it motivates me the better.
  • “It’s going to be very interesting to see the reactions to the story. I mean, because basically you’re talking about a man who killed innocent civilians.”
  • “It’s entirely possible that I’m blacking it out.”
  • “Please understand that my memory of this event is clouded by the fog of the evening, age and desire.”
  • “The thing that I will remember until the day I die is walking in and finding, I don’t know, 14 or so. I don’t even know what the number was, women and children who were dead.”
  • “I’m a lieutenant in charge of this platoon, and I take responsibility.”
  • “Let the other people judge whether or not what I did was militarily allowable or morally ethical or inside the rules of war.”
  • “Under the unwritten rules of Vietnam, we would have been justified had we not been fired upon. You were authorized to kill if you thought that would be better,"
  • “We were instructed to take no prisoners.”
We could go on but it would be best for readers to read the materials themselves. It would be best to ask why fellow SEALS have questioned Kerrey’s actions? It would be best to ask if Kerrey violated the standing rules of war when he and his team killed those women and children? It would be reasonable to ask if this episode has been covered up by the military, by the local and national media and most importantly by Bob Kerrey himself?

One thing is for sure, Bob Kerrey’s involvement in this event provides plenty of reason to wonder about his character. One who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones. And one who been involved in such a horrendous episode involving the murder of women and children shouldn’t be questioning the character of someone’s land deals…..

Obama Lies: The World Community Doesn't Respect the U.S.A. More After Four Years

Despite his bowing to foreign dignitaries and his apology tour, President Obama's 'efforts' haven't resulted in greater respect for the United States:

This from Pew Data Global Resource

Sunday, October 28, 2012



Chevrolet Volt
We just can't help but find it amusing how every government program or effort begets more costs and more regulations.   Now we have to take those wonderful electric vehicles and add a 'noise' to alert folks that they are coming.....


Feds propose rule for electric car noises to alert blind pedestrians
Posted By Michael Bastasch On 1:23 AM 10/25/2012 @ 1:23 AM In Daily Caller News Foundation,US

"Federal regulators have proposed a rule to require electric and hybrid car manufacturers to add artificial noises that to alert pedestrians, in particular the blind, to slow-moving electric vehicles.

“Because these cars operate so quietly, particularly at low speeds, they are involved in more accidents with pedestrians and cyclists who can’t hear the vehicle coming,” according to the Department of Transportation. “This problem is even bigger for the visually impaired who rely on sounds for guidance.”

The rule has been languishing at the White House since May of this year and would require the secretary of transportation to create a “motor vehicle safety standard” — basically making sure hybrids and electric cars have artificial sounds so blind people can hear them.

The secretary of transportation was supposed to initiate rule-making by July 2012, and issue a final rule in January 2014. However, the rule has been languishing in the White House for about 5 months. Rules generally spend one or two months at the White House.

“A five month hold on a rule past its statutory deadline is rare,” Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration is conducting research for the rule, but has not developed any cost-benefit estimates yet, but the rule is classified as economically significant — meaning it has an impact of more than $100 million on the economy.

“All we know about this proposal is that it would have a minimum impact on the economy of $100 million,” Batkins added. “That the rule is being held in limbo indicates the impact is likely much higher. The public won’t know until the proposal is released.”

However, the NHTSA “believes that there are no significant risks associated with this rulemaking and that only beneficial outcomes will occur.”

“Even as we make giant leaps forward with hybrid and electric vehicles, we must remain laser focused on safety,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland in a statement last year. “With more and more quiet vehicles on the road, we have to consider their effect on pedestrians.”

Initial NHTSA research found that the average person — not just the blind — took longer to detect electric vehicles, especially at lower speeds, as opposed to conventional vehicles. Currently, the agency is testing synthetic sounds in electric and hybrid vehicles that emit sound at low speeds.

The NHTSA study selected three types of driving maneuvers that they believe pose high risks for the blind. They tested Vehicles “backing out at 5 mph” to mimic backing out of a driveway, vehicles slowing down from 20 mph to 10 mph to mimic a vehicle “preparing to turn right from the parallel street,” and vehicles approaching at a “constant low speed.”

“The blind, like all pedestrians, must be able to travel to work, to school, to church, and to other places in our communities, and we must be able to hear vehicles in order to do so,” said Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind.
The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010, sponsored by Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, requires the Secretary of Transportation to study and create a safety standard that allows the blind to be alerted when electric vehicles are nearby. The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama in January 2011.
Cosponsors of the bill included Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Republican Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

“As new vehicle technologies become more prevalent in the years to come, The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act will ensure that people who are blind will still be able to travel safely,” said Mitch Pomerantz, President of the American Council of the Blind.

It is unclear why honking a car horn is unsuitable to alert pedestrians, in a particular the blind, to the presence of an electric vehicle."

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallrnewsfoundation.org.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Ad Watch (Fischer): Distorting

Here's the latest from Ending Spending, Joe Ricketts' superpac.   A nice ad.

Cartoon of the Day: Horses and Bayonets


Regulations Quadruple Under Obama!

From the 'Foundry' of the Heritage Foundation

Debate Analysis: Did Regulation Quadruple Under Obama? The Numbers Say Yes   James Gattuso

Regulatory policy made a cameo appearance in last night’s presidential debate when Governor Mitt Romney took aim at the Obama Administration’s penchant for making rules.

“Regulations have quadrupled,” Romney said. “The rate of regulations quadrupled under this President.”

The assertion led to a mini-controversy this morning over the Obama regulatory record. Left-leaning blogger Andrew Sullivan, Salon.com, and the Huffington Post all jumped in to argue that there has been no such increase in regulation. Obama, in fact, has imposed fewer new regulations than did Bush, they claim.

But they are wrong, and Romney was right.

The number cited by Romney comes from Heritage’s most recent “Red Tape Rising” report, which compared the number and cost of major regulations during the first three years of President Obama’s Administration to the first three years under President George W. Bush.

In terms of total rulemakings, Obama’s total was almost equal to Bush’s—at 10,215 and 10,674, respectively. But most analysts recognize that these gross figures mean little, because most regulations are routine actions, such as aviation maintenance bulletins and fishing season limits.

Far more telling are the numbers of “major” rules: those that will cost the private sector $100 million or more each year. We found that 106 such major new regulations have been adopted during the Obama years, compared to 28 under Bush—a ratio of 3.8 to 1. In terms of cost, Obama’s rules imposed some $46 billion in additional annual burdens, compared to $8.1 billion in new costs during the first three Bush years, a whopping 5.6 to 1 ratio.

These numbers should not be surprising: President Obama has hardly been shy about making the case for increased regulation, and the record reflects that. Governor Romney was right to point that out."

Friday, October 26, 2012

The Stretch Run: Framing the Debate -- Gerald R. Florine

Two weeks to go until this election is decided. Governor Romney appears to be on what hopefully will be an inexorable climb in the polls, and a victory on 11/06. The Obama campaign and the national liberal media are in a state of denial and panic. And, unfortunately, it is blatantly obvious that the Obama campaign will literally do anything to divert attention from the dire economic situation that confronts this nation and the administration’s pathetic record in attempting to assist in resolving or contributing to an economic resurgence.
 
The Administration has sunk to the absolute, sickening depths of depravity. It has circulated the charge that Republican candidate Mitt Romney might just be a felon as a result of certain documents that “might” indicate that he was not “technically” relieved of his management responsibilities at Bain Capital when he left to manage the Olympic games. Harry Reid has claimed on good “authority” that Romney really didn’t pay any income taxes for years, and that Romney really isn’t a good Mormon. In a scurrilous campaign ad Americans were told that Romney was virtually responsible for a woman’s death from cancer because Bain closed a failing steel mill long after he left the company! And on and on! And now it’s that the Romney campaign is literally lying about virtually everything!
 
There are multiple strands of strategy and philosophy at play here.
 
First, we are getting a first hand look at what old fashioned, gutter style, take no prisoners Chicago politics looks like at the national level. Anyone who expected anything different, and was not prepared, was incredibly naive and / or delusional. With scumbags like David Axelrod, Stephanie (Baghdad Bob) Cutter, etc., managing the campaign, and even looking at Obama’s early Chicago campaign tactics, the politics of destruction was to be a given. As a subset, the attempt to define an opponent, rather than allowing them to define themselves, becomes a necessity.
 
Second, and more importantly, beyond the gutter politics being practiced by the Obama team, is the philosophical message that is, and has been emerging. And that message is that the very underlying structure of what has come to be understood as American Exceptionalism (economy, world status, self achievement, individual liberty, etc.) is under attack by this Administration and its fellow travelers. President Obama has become more and more assertive and obvious in his comments. Especially telling were his comments that no one can really build a business by themselves without the assistance of “government”, i.e. infrastructure, laws, education, etc.! Delivered without the apparent assistance of his teleprompter, we have an unfettered view of the “real” mindset of this President. This is a President whose goals for this society are roughly 180 degrees from what, I hope, a vast majority of American voters understand to be its very foundations! One only needs to review the pattern of his agenda, and his occasional non-prompter aided comments to obtain a general understanding of his world view.
 
Now that the debates have been completed, we have less than two weeks to fathom the denouement of this existential struggle / debate for the future of this nation. As with some observers from “our” side, I have been somewhat concerned with the way the debate is being “framed” by Governor Romney. Many of my concerns have been assuaged in the debates. However, it continues to be an aphorism that The American Economy is in trouble. It is in trouble because of certain past mistakes by a collusion of government and the major financial markets, and the specific policies of the Obama Administration, which are making the economy seriously worse, making it more and more difficult for the economy to respond.


This economy, the most successful in the history of the world, is based upon the concept of “free enterprise”, or perhaps more specifically what is known as “capitalism”. This concept is currently under attack by the left intelligentsia, and the Obama Administration. It is obvious, from the multiple writings of those acknowledged scribes / intellectuals (?), and Obama policies, that there is intent to transform this economy into a European style, government managed economy, with an all encompassing safety net for all.

Believe it Or Not (with deference to Mr. Ripley), it has become absolutely necessary to re-focus on the basics of why a “return” to a market oriented system, with limited government interference, is the only way to reinvigorate this economy, and get this nation back on the track of growth and opportunity.

Somehow, at least superficially, the rationale / raison d’etre would seem to be patently obvious. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Even some Republican “strategists” caution about using the term “capitalism” because it is gaining a “negative” connotation. The cacophony of vitriol aimed at the financial system, the wealthy, corporate America, literally anyone who has in any way succeeded financially, over the past four years by the Obama Administration, the “establishment” media, and the leftist intelligentsia (i.e. the irrationally delusional Paul Krugman, et al), has been unparalleled.

It is imperative that Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan, in these final days, make their final case for adjusting the economic rudder for the ship of state. That will require more than a few sound bites about jobs, adjusting the tax code, and the Obama accounting shuffle of $700+ billion of Medicare funds. It will require laying the foundation for “how” the U.S. economy is supposed to work, and how current policies are completely undermining its effectiveness, and literally stunting growth.

Unfortunately, to a great extent, the Romney campaign has allowed the Obama campaign to essentially characterize its economic strategy as a stratagem.

The Federal government must serve as a neutral referee in the economy. It cannot be the driver, as is being promulgated by this Administration. “Free enterprise” requires competition. The Obama Administration currently appears to be doing everything possible to limit competition and choose winners and losers! It has unleashed a regulatory system via fiat from the Executive Branch via agencies that are allowed to write their own rules without limitation, and with often malicious intent toward the businesses they are seeking to “regulate”. Through legislation for ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, Executive Branch agencies are given free reign to write what ever rules they desire, without Congressional oversight. And those rules, along with the unconscionable dictates from EPA, etc., are constricting business expansion.
 
The Obama argument for “fairness” is achieved by imposing increasing taxation on the “wealthy”, judged to be anyone who earns roughly $200,000 or more in a single year, and imposing government intrusion into the economic system. Government becomes the driver of the economy! The economy must “grow out from the middle”, which is Keynesian doublespeak for having the government putting money in the hands of the “middle class”, which they must spend, and the economy allegedly expands exponentially. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, with her incredibly gifted (?) economic perspective, about what putting food stamps into the marketplace will do for the economy!
 
The economy grows when there is a semblance of economic security, unlike the current situation of potential higher taxes, the impending “fiscal cliff”, ever expanding government regulation and direct intrusion in the economy. With relative security, reasonable tax levels, business sees the opportunity to grow and expand, thus creating the need for added jobs, which generates wealth and added revenue, allowing for the expansion of “investment” and infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Romney campaign has essentially allowed the Obama campaign to get away with the charge that they want to return to “the failed policies of the past”, i.e. of the Bush Administration specifically, and irresponsible Wild West of the “free market”! And this charge is never refuted!

What led to the major recession experienced in ‘08 and ‘09 was an excessive bubble burst caused by an out of control housing market. And that was caused by the emphasis the U.S. government placed on allowing lower income individuals, regardless of credit, to become involved in the housing market, beginning in the Clinton Administration, and then, unfortunately, supported, for a time, by the Bush Administration while dealing with the economic difficulties brought about by the 9/11 attack. The banking / financial system was cajoled / forced into assisting this debacle. Within a decade, a system requiring financial security to finance a house had deteriorated into a free for all where virtually anyone could secure a mortgage, with little or no documentation. By the time the Bush Administration addressed the seriousness of the problem, a Democratic controlled Congress refused to allow the brakes to be applied. At that point, it may have been too late. In any case, the policies that caused the recession parallel those of the Obama Administration more closely than anything that Governor Romney is proposing.

Crony capitalism and government intervention in the markets, along with misplaced altruism in assisting the economically challenged are Obama policies, and are what brought about the recession! Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan need to call President Obama on this issue.

This country needs to get back to what has worked time and again in the past! Allow the markets to choose winners and losers! Not a group of ivory tower eggheads sitting in ultimate judgment in Federal agencies! Note now that the Justice Department, the most politicized Justice in the history of this nation, is now suing large financial institutions for making and packaging the loans that the government essentially forced / allowed them to initially make, thus further undermining the “free” market, and calling for further government rules to “level the playing field!”.

So little time, so much to accomplish. The Romney campaign has laid its groundwork, and the trend is positive. Now it’s up to Governor Romney and his brain trust to weather the storm of whatever it is the Obama campaign has available to unleash from its arsenal of campaign weapons of mass destruction. It will be some nerve-wracking days!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald R. Florine is a conservative activist and a frequent contributor to the Objective Conservative

Say No to Jane's Candiates

We just got Jane Fonda Kleeb's list of recommended candidates to vote for on November 6, so we'd say here is a list of folks you definitely don't want to vote for:
  • John Ewing, 2nd District U.S. Congress
  • Ken Harr, Nebraska Legislature District 21
  • Vern Barrett, Nebraska Legislature District 23
  • Fred Christensen, NPPD Director District 11
  • Rachel Wise State Board of Education District 3
And here are some of John Ewing's comments about the Keystone Pipeline straight from Kleeb's website:  “To argue that we need the pipeline because of the jobs it will produce is a false argument; no one knows how many jobs the pipeline will actually produce and no one believes that the jobs it will produce will be long term. It’s a fallacy to argue that jobs are the reason energy companies are pushing the pipeline.”



Thursday, October 25, 2012

Since we like Sabato's Crystal Ball a lot and since we respect what he (they) print, we thought we'd share his latest analysis of the electoral vote. 


PRESIDENT AND SENATE:
WHERE WE STAND NOW
By Kyle Kondik and Larry J. Sabato
U.Va. Center for Politics
"There are a lot of fishy things going on in the presidential race.

An incumbent president’s approval rating is historically a good
indicator of how he will do on Election Day. By this
measurement, President Obama should be in decent shape:
according to the RealClearPolitics average from mid-day
Wednesday, Obama’s approval rating was 49.8%; that average
includes polls taken of all adults (the bigger pool of people that
includes non-voters), as well as likely voters (a smaller pool).
And yet, the president is running more than two points behind
 his approval in the average of national horse race polls -- at
mid-day Wednesday, he stood at 47.2%, to Mitt Romney’s
47.8%.

Meanwhile, Romney actually has taken the lead over Obama
on “favorability.” Romney’s net favorability -- the gap
between the people who say they have a favorable view of him
versus those who have an unfavorable view -- is two points
higher than Obama, although both men have roughly the same
“favorable” ratings: 49.7% for the president and 49.3% for the
challenger. On Oct. 3, the day of the first debate, Obama’s net
favorability was 6.6 points higher than Romney’s. The changing
opinions are almost certainly related to the first debate, and
while Obama won the last two debates on points, his
aggressiveness toward Romney might have had a cost in
favorability, even as his approval rating has stayed close to 50%.

We mention all this just to note the conflicting signals in this
very close contest.














So here’s a reminder of where we see the race now:


And here’s what we think we know about the battlegrounds:
-- Nevada appears to be moving toward the president; Democrats
are very well organized there and public polling, which has
shown Obama with a small lead, is noted in Nevada for
understating Democratic performance. Early voting in the key
swing county of Washoe (Reno) is close, although it appears that
Democrats have such a huge advantage in heavily populated
Clark County (Las Vegas) that it might be difficult for
Republicans to overcome in the rest of the state.

-- Virginia, meanwhile, might be tilting toward Romney, but only
by a hair. On a good day, Romney appears to be up a point or two
in his own campaign's private polling, and the public polling is dead
even. Rumors of Virginia's demise as a swing state are highly
exaggerated; it exists in a different place than Florida, a state that
very well might be close but that leans more toward Romney in
our ratings.

-- We would classify Colorado much the same way we would
classify Virginia: toss-ups that might -- might -- tilt slightly to
Romney.

-- Democrats historically have an early voting advantage in Iowa,
which we still have in the leans Democratic column, but it's hard to
see Democrats banking quite the early advantage they won there in
2008. In 2000, Al Gore won Iowa by less than half a percentage
point; George W. Bush won it four years later by less than a point.
Another photo finish is not out of the question.

-- The same may be true of Wisconsin, which like Iowa has been
a decent bet for Democratic presidential candidates in recent years,
although Gore and John Kerry each won Wisconsin by less than
half a point. Obama has a slightly bigger lead here in public
polling than he does in Iowa and Ohio, which might make our
rating of it as a toss-up seem counter-intuitive. The trustworthy
Marquette Law School Poll, though, shows the race as basically a
tie, 49%-48% Obama, and Wisconsin's political volatility over the
cycle along with Paul Ryan's spot on the Republican ticket might
make it a special case. Obama probably has a fingernail's worth
of advantage here -- and likely in New Hampshire too -- akin
to Romney's potentially minuscule advantage in Colorado and
Virginia.

-- Pennsylvania and Michigan remain teases for the Republicans.
So are Minnesota and Oregon, which are other states mentioned
as potential surprises, along with Maine's Second Congressional
District. If the race breaks very late and very big for Romney, he
could capture one or more of them. But none of these are likely to
provide him with a decisive, 270th electoral vote. North Carolina
probably belongs in the same category for Obama, as does a longer
long-shot: Arizona.

-- Finally: Ohio. We just have not seen indications as of yet that
Obama has lost his small lead in the Buckeye State, although
Romney is clearly doing better than he was before the first debate.
We're always looking for parallels to previous elections, so how
about this one: 1976. That year, Jimmy Carter built a big lead over
incumbent President Gerald Ford -- much bigger than Obama's
pre-debate edge -- only to see that lead slip away during the
campaign. That year, Carter won Ohio by less than three-tenths
of a percentage point, while a liberal Senate candidate, Democrat
Howard Metzenbaum, defeated Republican Sen. Robert Taft by
three points. Given that a liberal senator in Metzenbaum's mold,
Democrat Sherrod Brown, looks likely to run ahead of his party's
presidential candidate, it wouldn't surprise us if we saw a similar
outcome this year. The truth is that the Midwestern battlegrounds
of Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin could still go either way.

Next Thursday, we fully intend to call all the states in the Electoral
College. But it’s also possible that a state or two will be so close
that, even a few days before the election, we won’t be confident
enough in the outcome to make a call. For instance, back in 2000,
the Crystal Ball called all the states save one: Florida, and said the
election would come down to the Sunshine State. It turned out that
our caution was justified. We won’t hesitate to do the same again.

 

How You Can Vote for 100 folks

In case you missed it and want to cast a bunch of voters for others, here is a video that shows you why you should be worried about voter I.D. and voter fraud.   Of course, it's not coincidental that this is the son, Patrick, of Virgina Congressman Jim Moran......

Cartoon of the Day: Obama Economy


Reviving Hillary's Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy --- Doug Patton

Remember when Bill Clinton was still denying his involvement with Monica Lewinsky, and an indignant Hillary went out to face the cameras on his behalf, imagining that his troubles were due to “a vast right-wing conspiracy”? Well, fast forward fifteen years and she’s at it again, this time on behalf of her boss, Barack Obama, the incredible shrinking man who loves to take credit for everything (have you heard that he got Osama bin Laden?) but finds it impossible to take responsibility for anything (whatever it is, it’s still Bush’s fault).

Following Mitt Romney’s elegant rope-a-dope of Obama in their third and final debate of this election season, during which the Republican nominee left the prosecution of the administration’s foreign policy blunders to others during the final days of their race for the White House, the president’s flailing re-election campaign finds itself confronting a whole new set of problems.

While relying heavily on the complicity of the mainstream media to aid in a blatant cover-up concerning a planned terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of 9/11, Obama has been desperate to run out the clock before voters can learn the truth about his incompetence and deceit. Now he must try to explain a newly obtained e-mail message that clearly shows he has been lying all along to the American people about the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

It turns out the president and his team of eggheads knew from day one that an organized terrorist group, not a cheaply made Internet video, was the catalyst for the assault in Benghazi. And yet they chose to propagate a lie, because the truth did not fit their fairytale campaign storyline that terrorism is no longer a problem. In Obama’s words at every campaign stop, “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaida is on the run.”

This is the most damning evidence yet in this unfolding scandal. The State Department communique to senior officials at the White House and the Pentagon clearly shows that team Obama knew what was happening to Ambassador Stevens and the others trapped inside the consulate in Benghazi, yet chose to do absolutely nothing to help them — nothing! — for seven long hours, as the violence was underway.

So how has Obama dealt with this growing scandal? Has he held a press conference to answer the tough questions some real reporters might actually want to ask him? Has he been willing to discuss the subject honestly in the presidential debates? Has he gone before the cameras in the Oval Office, Gipper style, to explain what actually happened?

No, his solution has been to hide behind Hillary Clinton’s skirts as she attempts to revive an old familiar boogey man, the vast right-wing conspiracy. Given what this whole fiasco is doing to her reputation worldwide, why Hillary would fall on this sword for the sorry likes of Barack Obama is beyond my comprehension, but there she was, this week, making excuses:

“The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything,” she said, “not cherry-picking one story here or one document there, but looking at everything which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this.”

Translation: Most of our good friends and political allies in the media are on the reservation, where they should be, until Election Day. But those right-wing nut jobs at Fox News, the Drudge Report and on talk radio are screwing up our narrative with just two weeks to go. Shame on them!

When Hillary ran against Obama in the 2008 Democrat primaries, she called into question his ability to deal with that hypothetical “three a.m. phone call.” Apparently, he just doesn’t take those calls. He lets them go to voice mail and flies off to Vegas for a fundraiser.

______________________________________________________________________________

© 2012 by Doug Patton
______________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns are syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to email him with their pithy comments at dpatton@cagle.com. For info on using his column at your publication or website, please email Cari Dawson Bartley at cari@cagle.com.

Bob Kerrey Shouldn't talk about Character or Ethics

With all of Bob Kerrey's negative personal attacks on the 'ethics' of Deb Fischer, perhaps voters would be well advised to look at Kerrey's documented character/ethics lapses.   

This from our friends at the Nebraska GOP:

A Small Fortune Amassed Through Insider Trading?
Bob Kerrey Did Build That.
 
LINCOLN, NE - Bob Kerrey sure has a lot to say about grazing land these days, but history (and the New York Times) tells us Mr. Kerrey is far more interested in cattle.
 
During his previous term in the US Senate, Bob Kerrey continued to buy and sell cattle futures contracts for six months after taking a seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
 
Some called this a clear conflict of interest. Some called his behavior ethically questionable. Others called it a case of Kerrey "playing fast and loose" with the rules.
 
Today, we call it insider trading. And if character counts, Bob Kerrey has repeatedly failed that test for his own personal financial gain, to the detriment of his constituents. 
 
Perhaps Mr. Kerrey's 401K has suffered from President Obama's failed economic policies these last four years and he's in desperate need of hot commodities tips for his portfolio.
 
In any case, Nebraskans should be very concerned that Mr. Kerrey wants his old job in the United States Senate simply to resume the abuses of power and insider trading schemes that made him an enormous sum of money during his first term in office.
 
"Sen. Bob Kerrey Continued Buying And Selling Cattle Futures Contracts For Six Months In 1989 After He Became A Member Of The Senate Agriculture Committee." (Robert Dorr, "Aide Denies Kerrey Conflict In Cattle Deals," Omaha World-Herald, 12/7/91, Para. 1). (J5)
"Kerrey's Financial Reports Show That Four Of His Cattle Contracts Each Exceeded $250,000. The Remaining Four Were In Amounts Between $100,000 And $250,000." (Robert Dorr, "Aide Denies Kerrey Conflict In Cattle Deals," Omaha World-Herald, 12/7/91, Para. 19). (J5)
"He Was Trading On Almost The Same Days That The Ag Committee Was Hearing Testimony On Oversight Of The Commodity Futures Trading Commission And About Trading Practices In The Commodity Futures Markets. The Hearings Were Feb. 23, March 9, And May 17, 1989." (Bob Hoig, "Kerrey Traded Cattle Futures While A Senate Ag," Midlands Business Journal, 12/6-12/91, Para. 37). (J7)
"Leonard Miller, Past President Of Midwest Futures Of Norfolk And A Veteran In Trading Cattle Futures And Futures Options, Said 'A Definite Conflict Of Interest Occurs' When Ag Committee Members Trade On The Futures Market." (Bob Hoig, "Kerrey Traded Cattle Futures While A Senate Ag," Midlands Business Journal, 12/6-12/91, Para. 10). (J7)
"'I'm Surprised That Bob Would Be Trading In That Volume,' Said John Hansen, President Of The Nebraska Farmers Union. 'Yes, It Really Kind Of Surprises Me.'" (Bob Hoig, "Kerrey Traded Cattle Futures While A Senate Ag," Midlands Business Journal, 12/6-12/91, Para. 23). (J7)
"Sen. Bob Kerrey Quit Trading In Cattle Futures Contracts Six Months After Becoming A Senate Agriculture Committee Member In 1989 Although, He Said, The Trades Weren't A Conflict Of Interest." (Robert Dorr, "Kerrey Quit Futures Trading Months After Taking Ag Seat," Omaha World-Herald, 12/10/91, Para. 1). (J6)

Ad Watch (Romney): American Crossroads: "At Stake"

No 'We're coming back", no "made in Detroit", no 'Make my Day.", but let's hope this new Clinton Eastwood ad by American Crossroads helps make President Obama's day......

Ad Watch (Romney): American Crossroads: "Bow"

A new one from Karl Rove's American Crossroads.

Ad Watch (Obama): 537 - Obama for America TV Ad

Gosh, do the Democrats finally admit that Bush won the 2000 election???

Ad Watch (Cinton, oops, Obama): He's Got it Right - Obama for America TV Ad

And while his wife is becoming the scapegoat for Lybia, ol' Bill is coming to the aid of his buddy Barack....

Ad Watch (Obama): El Voto Es Critíco - Anuncio de Televisión de Obama for America

Michelle is now in the act and going after the Hispanic vote in five states.   We won't see it in Iowa because they have no illegal aliens to vote there.....

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Mourdock's Foot in Mouth

Seems our earlier post on senate aspirant Richard Mourdock wasn't without some credence.  Guess Richard will earn the Joe Biden Foot in Mouth Award for October.

Here is the latest from Congressional Quarterly's Daily Briefing:


"THE ‘R’ WORD: The Senate Republican leadership raced to Richard Mourdock’s side this morning, while the Romney campaign gave him as wide a berth as possible.

The reasons, both for the approach and the avoidance, are easy to understand. McConnell has a much
smaller chance of becoming majority leader, and John Cornyn has a slimmer shot at being labeled a campaign maestro, if the Indiana seat flips to the Democrats. And perhaps the only way to prevent that from happening is for the GOP to launch an immediate and all-out spin control effort to change the narrative about the state treasurer’s comments last night on rape, pregnancy and God’s omnipotence. The presidential candidate, by contrast, is absolutely counting on Indiana’s 11 electoral votes as part of his base — and on keeping his gender gap nationally in the single digits — and so it’s imperative that he disavow what Mourdock seemed to say and create as much distance from the going-viral contretemps as possible.

The Romney camp may have the tougher task. “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” spokeswoman Andrea Saul said last night. But just last week, he agreed to put his Hoosier coattails (he’s performing about 10 points better than Mourdock in state polls) to work for the Senate candidate, and this week the airwaves have been filled with Romney offering a strong endorsement of Mourdock. The spot is all about his fiscal conservatism, however. (Obama campaign spokesman Jen Psaki derided Mourdock’s comments today as “outrageous and demeaning to women,” and said it was “perplexing” Romney hasn’t demanded the ad be taken down.)

Even if Romney agrees to pull the spot, it will live on forever in cyberspace — and independent groups backing Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly have already begun splicing the governor’s testimonial with what Mourdock said last night near the end of their final debate: “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time,” he said, his voice cracking as he discussed his view that abortion should be permitted only to save the pregnant woman’s life. “But I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

The remark immediately drew comparisons to the comments Rep. Todd Akin made about pregnancies resulting from “legitimate rape” at the outset of his general election Senate campaign in Missouri — remarks that have turned him from front-runner to underdog against Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. But unlike Akin — who has apologized for but never fully disavowed what he said and has continued to run an unabashedly hard-right campaign — Mourdock sought to clarify his comments as soon as the debate ended. And in the days ahead, he plans to continue his strategy of abandoning the tea-party posturing that propelled him past Dick Lugar in the primary and embracing a much more centrist and conciliatory tone. “Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or pre-ordained rape?” he said at a news conference. “No, I don’t believe that. Anyone who would suggest that is, that’s a sick and twisted; no, no that’s not even close to what I said. What I said is God creates life.”

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, came to his not-my-first-choice candidate’s defense in a statement this morning (which also noted that Donnelly generally opposes abortion rights). “Life is a gift from God,” he said. “To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous.”


Jay Leno Talks about Scary


After the Monday night debate, Jay Leno's monologue was interest when he said,

"So far for Halloween, sales of Obama masks are 30% higher than Mitt Romney masks... Well, that makes sense! What's scarier than four more years of this economy?"

You can find the full monologue: at:http://nation.foxnews.com/jay-leno/2012/10/23/lenos-joke-obama-halloween-mask-sales-economy?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation

Time to Tell the University of Nebraska to Stick It


We are beginning to wonder who is running state and local government. Is it the governor, the legislature, local county board members or city council members??? No, more and more it seems it’s the administration of the University of Nebraska and the timid ‘always say yes’ members of the University of Nebraska Board of Regents.

We in the Omaha area have just been put in a place where we are paying triple taxation to finance the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s $400 some million cancer center. After making promises to the governor and legislature that it would not seek other government funding, the administration broke its promise and went to Douglas County and the City of Omaha with their hands out for more. The liberals on both the county board and the city council willingly came up with another $45 million from county and city coffers, local taxpayers, to go to the university’s aide.

The contribution from the county board will no doubt help the governor’s renewed attempt next year to finally end the county inheritance tax. So by donating your tax dollars the Douglas County Board will probably have rung the death knell for that tax.

But none the less, Omahans are now paying state taxes to finance the project, county taxes to finance the project and city taxes to finance the project.

So after sticking it to the taxpayers of Omaha, what next? Oh, a new arena for the University of Nebraska at Omaha, one to play hockey and basketball in. And of course, the ‘administration’, which apparently hadn't shared any details of the plan with University of Nebraska Board of Regents in advanced, just last week revealed its plan which will take further advantage of the largess of Omaha taxpayers while frankly screwing them.

The administration wants Omaha taxpayers to finance the infrastructure work through a ruse to take advantage of TIF, tax increment financing. The administration would create a semi-private entity to qualify for the infrastructure improvements but in the end would get the entire facility and improvements returned to its ownership.

But it’s only $10 million or so, right? So it’s not much and why make a big deal out of it? No, once again the university is going to screw Omaha tax payers. First by getting $10 million in financing through a ruse. Then by moving twenty events a year out of the taxpayer financed Century Link Center on which Omahans still owe more than $200 million. So the movement of Maverick Hockey, the primary money earner for UNO’s sports programs, will cost the taxpayers of Omaha by taking income away from the Century Link while once again feathering the pockets of the university. What a deal!

We think it’s time to just say no to the university and its administration and, yes, the board of regents if they go along with this. The taxpayers of Omaha have given enough. They’ve anteed up more than their fair share to the medical center and other projects across the state. Now they are expected to jeopardize their $300 million investment in the Century Link in order to once again ‘help’ the university build a project that will take even more out of their pockets.

Cartoon of the Day: What Happens in Benghazi




Abortion: One Sentence Responses, "Next Question"

Richard Mourdock
There are times that you just know you wish you'd never opened your mouth.   If you are a candidate for office, the old 'keep it simple' principle should guide you.     If you are a candidate for office one of the most landmine filled issues is abortion.   If you are a campaign manager one of the things you tell your client is that respond to abortion questions with a one sentence answer and then respond with "Next Question?"

Sadly, the U.S. Senate may be lost by the Republicans by responses to abortion questions.   Missouri is certainly one of the greatest examples of this and and Todd Akin's response about 'legitimate' rape may cost the party its opportunity to control the senate and depose Harry Reid to a Nevada rest home.
Todd Akin

Now, we have yet another abortion guffaw in Indiana with Richard Mourdock.   As soon as we heard this yesterday we just scratched our head in disbelief.   Oh well, you can tell them and tell them but politicians often think "The more, I say on a topic the smarter I am".

We weren't fans of Senator Lugar, but conservatives and Republicans might just be wishing he had been their candidate on November 6 when it comes to control of the Senate:

Indiana Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock under fire for suggesting God intends pregnancies caused by rape

Posted By Alexis Levinson On 9:45 PM 10/23/2012 @ 9:45 PM In DC Exclusives,DC Exclusives - Original Reporting,Politics,Uncategorized | No Comments

Indiana Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock is drawing flack for suggesting that God intends for pregnancies to result from rape.

The comment came during Tuesday’s debate between Mourdock and his Democratic opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly.

“I believe that life begins at conception,” Mourdock said. “The only exception I have … is in that case of the life of the mother. I just, I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Democrats immediately pounced on the comment.

“Richard Mourdock’s disturbing comment about rape is a window into Mourdock’s extreme view of the world,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Shripal Shah said. “Indiana can’t afford to send a self-proclaimed ‘zealot’and tea partier like Richard Mourdock to the Senate.”

Donnelly was even more critical of his opponent.

“I think rape is a heinous and violent crime in every instance,” he said in a statement. “The God I believe in, and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen — ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape.”

Mourdock immediately clarified the comments, saying that Democrats were misinterpreting his words.

“God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick,” Mourdock said in a statement sent out minutes after the DSCC attack.


Social issues have been a major point of attack for Democrats this cycle, most notably in the case of Rep. Todd Akin, whose comment about “legitimate rape” caused a firestorm."