October 29, 2012

Gallup: ’2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008′ — Except That Party Affiliation Is GOP +3 Instead of Dems +12

On Friday, Neil Stevens at RedState described that morning’s report from Gallup by Jerry M. Jones comparing the makeup of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 electorates as having “buried the lede so far deep, they’ll be fracking in Australia to bring it to the surface.”

Indeed. The headline (“2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008″) tells viewers, “nothing’s different, so you really don’t need to read on.” The post’s chart, after boring us to tears with demographic stats which have barely changed in the past four and eight years tracking characteristics which don’t directly drive people’s voting preferences, finally get to the ones relating to party affiliation.

(more…)

Benghazi: ‘It’s Not About Politics, It’s About the Truth’

From today’s Washington Examiner editorial:

When Americans choose their presidents, one of their considerations is that they want a commander in chief who can make tough calls when the pressure is on. Obama deserves credit for making the right call when Osama bin Laden became a target of opportunity. But when U.S. diplomats came under a terrorist attack in Libya, someone in the chain of command failed to make the “gutsy call” that might have saved them.

Nearly seven weeks have passed since the attacks, and Americans are still forced to rely on document leaks and reporters with good sources for answers as to who owns the failure in Libya. Why isn’t Obama’s administration producing the answers?

After the consulate attack, Obama and his top aides spent two weeks spreading the absurd and implausible story that the attack was caused by a campy YouTube video. More recently, news reports and leaked emails have shown that the White House was aware of terrorist involvement very early on. And last week, Fox News reported exclusively that CIA forces on the ground had requested help as the attack raged, and even had a laser pointed at the terrorists who were firing mortars. The CIA men asked for help and were denied three times.

At this point, Obama’s repeated assurance that “we’re going to investigate exactly what happened” is looking more and more like a dilatory tactic to hide the truth and keep this story under the surface until Election Day. He has been promising an investigation for seven weeks now — so has it even begun? For context, it only took four weeks after the original 9/11 attacks for U.S. forces to take the dramatic step of invading Afghanistan, and only nine weeks to take control of Kabul and displace the Taliban government that had been offering shelter to bin Laden.

Charles Woods, whose son Tyrone was killed in the attack last month, felt pain and disappointment after his meeting with Obama, whose apology he called “insincere.” “It just didn’t feel right,” Woods told radio host Lars Larson. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening … Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help.”

Immediately after Sept. 11, when Mitt Romney weighed in prematurely on the simultaneous Egyptian embassy riots, the nation’s political reporters managed to turn it into a seven-day “gaffe” story. Maybe those same newshounds could pursue a real story now — why, after seven weeks, is the most transparent president in American history still dodging questions about what happened in Benghazi?

Related: Roger Simon at PJ Media — “Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.”

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (102912)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________

Positivity: Nebraska Catholics dedicated to cause of religious freedom

From Omaha, Nebraska:

Oct 28, 2012 / 06:00 pm

A group of Nebraska Catholics has created and donated banners for 147 Catholic churches that bear messages about defending religious liberty, the unborn, and marriage between a man and a woman.

“They are outstanding banners,” Fr. Ryan Lewis, pastor of Omaha’s St. Thomas More Parish, told CNA Oct. 26. “I thought the message was incredible. The people in my parish are all fired up about concerns about attacks on religious liberty as it relates to the current administration and the HHS mandate.”

One of the banners reads: “Religious Liberty: Our Most Cherished Freedom.” The 4-by-12 foot banner also bears the website address of the Archdiocese of Omaha, though the archdiocese is not a financial backer of the project.

The Department of Health and Human Services has mandated that most employers with over 50 employees provide no co-pay insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs. Only some religious employers are exempt under certain narrow conditions.

Many Catholic health care systems, colleges, and charities do not qualify for the exemption, despite Catholic objections to providing the coverage. Violators pay heavy fines, prompting opponents to object that the mandate punishes Catholic employers who want to follow their consciences.

Fr. Lewis’ parish was the first to display the banners.

He said the members of his “very diverse, working-class parish” in a historically Democratic part of town are “very, very excited” about the banners.

In his view, a message distilled down to religious liberty makes Catholics rise above any partisan considerations.

Go here for the rest of the story.