Season’s Greetings from the White House and a History of Presidential Christmas Cards

The 2012 White House “Holiday” card focusses on the Obama family’s Portuguese Water Dog

This year, once again an exclusive list of foreign dignitaries, presidential associates, staffers, connections, and friends and family of the First Family have received their seasonal greetings from the White House. As was the case in 2011, the holiday card from the Obama’s features Bo, the First Family’s pet, a Portuguese Water Dog. The well executed artwork captures a sense of at least the Winter season with a happy little black and white illustration that was designed by Iowa artist Larassa Kabel and shows Bo wearing a scarf, while frolicking in the snow on the South Lawn of the White House. The inside of the card reads;

“This season, may your home be filled with family, friends, and the joy of the holidays.”

The card is signed by the entire First Family, including Bo, whose paw print adorns the inside.

Last year’s card also featured Bo and like last year, the 2012 greeting does not make any mention of Christmas. That omission which was also made in the 2009 White House cards, has been a source of great controversy for many. But the Obama cards are not the first to neglect the use of the word Christmas in their Christmas cards. Former President Bush did not use the phrase “Merry Christmas” in his cards either. However he did typically include passages from the Bible passages in his official seasonal greetings. In his last year in office, a verse from the Gospel of Matthew was used. It read;

“Let the light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is heaven,”

Unlike President Obama’s card, Bush’s references to verses from the Bible did at least remind us that Jesus was the reason for the season. In the current White House, no such attempt is made.

The History of Presidential Christmas Cards

Despite the politics and criticisms behind the Obama White House cards, they will soon be a part of a now relatively long historical tradition of White House holiday messages that goes back at least 89 years. In 1923 , Lucretia Walker Hardy, the acting general director of the Community Center Department of the District of Columbia Public Schools wrote a letter to President Calvin Coolidge’s secretary, C. Bascom Slemp. The letter gave birth to a White House tradition that is now taken for granted when carried out, but would practically force a President outr of office if they failed to follow through with. The letter actually gave rise to two White House traditions, the National Christmas Tree and the White House Christmas, or season’s greetings cards.

In her letter, Lucretia Walker Hardy wrote, ‘The event which Christmas commemorates means more to to the world as a whole than any other holiday we observe”. She added “The tree would be outward evidence of the President’s desire to give encouragement to the spirit of which it is symbolic”.

Hardy suggested that the tree come from President Coolidge’s native state of Vermont and after offering volunteering her public schools department for the purpose of erecting and decorating the tree, she invited President Coolidge to officiate over it’s lighting on Christmas Eve.

Due to a public event that the First Lady had already scheduled, the President’s Secretary had to deny Hardy’s request to use White House grounds for the ceremony on Christmas Eve, but the Ellipse was chosen as a suitable alternative for the event.

Not long after that, Middlebury College President Paul D. Moody penned a letter to President that read;

“Middlebury College counts it as a privilege to send to you, from its forest preserve in the heart of the Green Mountains , a National Christmas Tree. It is our hope that this Vermont Tree when electrically illuminated in Washington will contribute toward a spread of the Christmas spirit throughout the nation”.

On December 18th, the 60 foot fir tree was delivered to the Ellipse, and under the supervision and services of the Potomac Electric Power Company, the tree was hauled in to place, just south of the Department of Treasury. The whole operation cost $500 and it included the expense of adding an electronic button that would allow the President to light the tree from the Executive Office.

At 5:05 pm, after walking to the Ellipse, President Coolidge stepped on the electronic button and lit the 3,000 light bulbs that adorned what was the nation’s first National Christmas Tree. While “Silent Cal” did not deliver a speech at the lighting ceremony, a choir and quartet played with great fanfare and at 7:00 PM the Marine Band played holiday music in a concert before thousands of spirited spectators.

Two hours later, Grace Coolidge orchestrated another display of holiday joy from the White House. Inspired by the the hymns she listened to at her church, Grace arranged for the appearance of 65 members of the First Congregation Church for the singing of Christmas carols. With the help of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, the event was heard by an estimated 1 million people via a broadcast over the radio station WCAP.

The Washington Post described the scene this way;

“From the steps of the White House there went forth last night a message of peace on earth, goodwill to me. It was the message echoing down through the ages from the days of the three shepherds, and as it passed from the throats of a choir on the portico of the White House, it was echoed by the President and his family and thousands of citizens, all in harmony with the re-echo in the hearts of the people of the nation and the rest of the world. It was the reverence of a Christian people giving at the seat of their government the expression of their praise for the “King of Kings” on the eve of his birth”.

That first Christmas at the White House for the First Family, was the last that they would all spend together. In the summer of 1924, 16 year old Calvin, Jr. died from Staphylococcus septicemia or as it is more commonly known ……. a staph infection, something which typically starts out on the skin but may enter the bloodstream through a cut or other opening in the skin.

However, in the years to follow, the public events of their first Christmas in the White House continued and in 1927 Coolidge wrote the first presidential Christmas message designed to address the nation as a whole. It appeared in every major newspaper on Christmas morning and received an overwhelmingly appreciative response that prompted thousands of telegrams to the White House which praised Coolidge for his heartfelt expression.

Over the years the holiday message became more personal and more aesthetically pleasing and as more time passed, the White House Christmas card became an official task of the first family that has inspired the commissioning of famed artists and the plight to find a unique way to reflect the character of each new family that has occupied the White House

As is the case with all traditions, they begin to take a life of their own as they experience a process of natural evolution that incorporates such things as public sentiments and trends, technology, and other influences, yet through it all, no matter what new spin is added, traditions all begin with first steps and in the case of the White House Christmas cards, those steps were taken by the Coolidges.

In 1946 the Trumans designed 800 of the following enclosures that went along with the picture shown below of the Trumans boarding the President’s private plane.

Between 1948 and 1952, Harry and Bess Truman lived in Blair House as the White House underwent renovations. So the President directed the Government Printing Office to print 1,000 copies of the following photo of the Blair House. It was given as gifts to the White House staff by President Truman during a 1951 pre-Christmas ceremony on December 22nd.

The President’s Personal, Artistic Touch: Christmas from the Eisenhowers

Although he was not a trained artist, Dwight D. Eisenhower was an avid amateur painter. As such, he allowed six of his works to be turned into Christmas gifts for the White House staff. According to Mary Evans Seeley, a collector of Presidential Christmas memorabilia and author of Season Greetings from the White House, President Eisenhower wrote the President of Hallmark, Joyce C. Hall the following;

“As you know I always hate to inflict art on my friends and members of my staff, but Hallmark makes such a beautiful package job that I am, and I hope others are, distracted into the belief that the whole thing is a superior product”.

With that came many Eisenhower renderings that were included with Christmas Cards:

An interesting story accompanies the second Eisenhower Christmas card. Hallmark designed two personal cards for the President and First Lady. One was a white card embossed with with a wreath along with a red bow and red berries. According Mary Evans Seeley, the day the cards were going to be shipped staff discovered that the ink from the red ribbon and berries were smearing on each of the cards. Suddenly, dozens of Hallmark artists were recruited in to an emergency operation which forced them to place a dab of clear nail polish on each berry and bow. The smudging crisis was solved and the cards were shipped to the White House via TWA.

The other personal card became a favorite of the First Lady. It was trademarked as the “Mamie Bangs” card and caricatured Mamie Eisenhower’s characteristic bangs.

Embossed Wreath Card with Red Coloring that smeared

The “Mamie Card”

1956

This Christmas gift print of the Green Room was given out with the Christmas card above in 1957

In 1957, this card was the personal enclosure that accompanied the the gift print below it

The image below is another painting by President Eisenhower that was reproduced and used as a White House Christmas gift print

And here is the very contemporary Christmas card provided by the Eisenhowers in 1958.

The Kennedy Cards

With the entrance of Kennedy’s in the White House came the touch of refined tastes that did not allow for caricatures and the bland and drab. So After Hallmark designed a a Christmas card that was similar to one the Eisenhower’s used, Jackie took special care to add her own touch to the now traditional presidential season greetings. In 1962 after Jackie oversaw an extensive updating of the White House and then introduced the nation to her home in a nationally televised tour, the home furnishings editor of the Philadelphia Bulletin want to do a special spread on the First Family’s updated digs. But after sending a photographer to take pictures of the renovated home, the editor rejected them and instead sent over Edward and advertising-illustrator artist to draw some sketches instead.

While doing one of his sketches, Mrs. Kennedy happened to see Lehman, got in to a discussion and was impressed by his work. After a particular Lehman painting of the Red Room appeared in the Philadelphia Bulletin, the Kennedy’s were extremely impressed and Jacki soon turned Lehman’s painting of the White House into cards Christmas Cards and gifts.

The Rarest of all Presidential Christmas Cards

A few days before President and Mrs. Kennedy departed for Texas in an attempt to begin his campaign for reelection, 500 special Christmas cards featuring a crèche that was in the Green Room of the White House, were delivered to the White House. With the holiday season under way and Christmas fast approaching, they began to sign these cards on November 20, 1963. Mrs. Kennedy signed in blue ink and the President signed in black. The few cards that were signed had not yet been mailed and after the tragic events of November 22, 1963, they never were.

In fact, at the time there was no record of the cards, not even in the Kennedy Library. But in 1985 fewer than 30 of these dual signed cards were discovered. They are now perhaps both the saddest and rarest Christmas cards in American history.

Below is the official Kennedy White House Christmas Card for 1962

The Johnson White House

5 days after taking office upon the tragic death of President Kennedy, the State Department asked President Johnson what he wanted to do in regards to a Christmas card. The decision was made to send our a very simple and sedate season greeting.

The Johnson’s 1963 Christmas Card

This beautiful Christmas card in the image below depicts the official White House Christmas Tree and it became the Johnson’s official Christmas card in 1967

A brief look at other Presidential Season’s Greeting Cards

The N.C. Wyeth painting of “Building the First White House” depicted here, was a patriotic poster used by the Pennsylvania Railroad and in 1971 the Nixon’s had Hallmark use it for the White House’s official Christmas Card

This George P. A. Healy painting (right) of Abraham Lincoln was the Nixon gift print that was sent out to many along with the Christmas card depicted above

A George Durie painting entitled Farmyard in Winter became the source for this 1975 Gerald Ford Christmas card

Mrs. Carter discovered this hand colored wood engraving of the White House (left) and it became the Carter’s official 1978 Christmas card

The painting above is a work by Thomas Williams Jones and it is of the North entry to the White House. It became the cover for this 1988 official Christmas card for the Reagans.

George and Barbara Bush commissioned artist Mark Hampton to do this watercolor of the Oval Office for their 1990 Christmas card

This 1992 Bush gift print of the National Christmas Tree was drawn by Kamil Kubik

As the Clinton’s moved in to the White House, Hallmark kind of lost its historic place in the handling of the White House Christmas. Instead the Clinton’s chose to go with American Greetings, a greetings card competitor to Hallmark that was a longtime friend of the Clinton’s, big financial supporter of his campaign, and a member of the American Greetings Board of Governors.

So in 1993, the Clinton’s received Charlie Riddle, creative director for American Greetings, and they worked with him on developing a Christmas card photo of the First Couple that conveyed the exact sense of wholesomeness and warmth that the First Lady specifically requested. The end product was the photo used on the card below. It features the President and Mrs. Clinton in the State Dining Room, next to a Christmas Tree and off to the side of a fireplace with the Lincoln portrait hanging right above it.

In 2002 Hallmark was back in the game of prersidential greetings as President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush began a tradition of including Bible verses in their season’s greetings.

This card featured a 1938 Steinway piano housed in the Grand Foyer of the White House.

The Bush’s 2008 card

Another Hallmark production was selected by the White House for the 2008 presidential holiday card above. The card image shows a view from the Truman Balcony of the White House. Mrs. Bush selected Maine artist T. Allen Lawson to create the original artwork for the card.

The Obama’s card used for Christmas 2011;

As we all take a brief but much needed from break from politics White House 2016 leaves you with these words spoken by Ronald Reagan from the White House in 1985.

“Let us reach out tonight to every person who is persecuted; let us embrace and comfort, support and love them. Let us come together as one family under the fatherhood of God, binding ourselves in a communion of hearts, for tonight and tomorrow and for all time. May we give thanks for an America abundantly blessed, for a nation united, free, and at peace. May we carry forward the happiness of the Christmas spirit as the guiding star of our endeavors 365 days a year. And as we light this magnificent tree, may all the youthful hope and joy of America light up the heavens and make the angels sing.”

“Merry Christmas, ands God bless you all.”

Woefully incapable of saying it any better ourself, on behalf of White House 2016 we quite simply state, “ditto”.

Merry Christmas from

White House 2016

Scott to Replace Demint in the Senate as Hawaii Seeks to Replace Inouye

Senator-elect Tim Scott

After two weeks of speculation about who will replace Jim DeMint in the U.S. Senate, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley made it official and appointed second term Congressman Tim Scott to fill out the remainder of Senator DeMint’s term. (See video below)

In an overwhelming show of unity and support for her decision, the appointment was made by Governor Haley during a late Monday morning press conference where she, Tim Scott, and Jim DeMint were joined by several Republican members of the South Carolina Republican congressional delegation, and senior South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham.

With praise from all, the decision to have Tim Scott fill out the remaining two years of DeMint’s term was celebrated as one which help ensure that South Carolinians continue to be represented by the same type of conservative values championed by Jim DeMint, who has been considered the most conservative member of both houses of Congress. But filling DeMint’s shoes will not be much of a challenge for Tim Scott who in less than two, already established himself a strong conservative voice. In his first term, Scott turned heads as one of the staunchest supporters of South Carolina’s free-rider-anti-union laws and as South Carolina’s Club for Growth’s scorecard gave Scott a B and a score of 80 out of 100, he is praised by the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers, for his “diligent, principled and courageous stands against higher taxes. It well earned praise for his tireless advocacy for smaller government, lower taxes, and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington.

After winning the general election in 2010, Tim acted upon his desires to regain fiscal sanity in the federal government and to limit its size and scope by acting on such issues with immediately and with urgency. The first bill he authored would defund and deauthorize the President’s health care reform package. e was also named to the influential House Rules Committee, asked to serve as a Deputy Whip and sits as one of two freshmen on the Elected Leadership Committee. Then he confronted our nation’s outdated and cumbersome tax code by sponsoring the Rising Tides Act. That initiative would lower burdensome corporate tax rates that discourage job growth and allow for the permanent repatriation of overseas profits. The latter would encourage American companies to bring home more than $1 trillion dollars that can be used for investment and job creation.

In general, Tim Scott is a consistent voice for significant cuts in federal spending, and staunch opponent of measures he believes do not go far enough. Tim was an original cosponsor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which would do just as it says – cut spending, cap our spending moving forward based on how much we bring in, and add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also cosponsored two stand-alone bills that would create a Balanced Budget Amendment, and voted against raising our nation’s debt limit.

While Rick Scott is not the only member of Congress who holds such positions, he, like his soon to be predecessor in the Senate, he is one of the few who has been so consistent in those positions. However, while Tim may not be the only member of either house to hold those positions, he is the only African-American in the United States Senate and that distinction will make him a leading voice in the Party, within the conservative movement, and in the nation.

Hiram Revels

Being African-American, Scott will have an incomparable ability to respond to and discount the left’s persistent attempts to paint those who hold his beliefs and political ideology as anti-black. And for a Party that needs desperately to attract Hispanic and African-American voters, the ability to convincingly contradict such mischaracterizations is invaluable. Meanwhile, Scott takes his place in history as only the seventh African-American to serve in the Senate.

Coming before him were Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, who briefly represented Mississippi during Reconstruction.

Blanche K. Bruce

The The first African American elected to the Senate by popular vote was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. Brooke served two full terms during which he championed the causes of low-income housing, an increase in minimum wages, and promoted commuter rail and mass transit systems. He also worked tirelessly to promote racial equality in the South.

Following Brooke in the Senate were Carol Mosley Braun and Barack Obama who were both elected from Illinois. Braun was elected in 1992, a year that saw more women than ever before elected to political office. For Braun the distinction was and is that she became the first and only African-American woman ever to serve as U.S. Senator.

Edward Brooke

In 2006, Illinois elected Barack Obama to the Senate and in 2009, after becoming President of the United States, another African-American, Roland Burris was appointed to fill out the remainder of his term.

Scott is expected to be officially sworn in to the Senate on January 3rd, 2013 and he has already committed himself to run for election to a full term in the Senate. That race will take place in 2014.

Another Seat Opens as Daniel Inouye Passes Away

Senator Daniel Inouye

On the same day that one replacement is named to the Senate, another seat became vacant as Democrat Daniel Inouye, the U.S. Senate’s most senior member and a Medal of Honor recipient for his bravery during World War II, died at age 88.

First elected to the Senate in 1962, Inouye’s tenure is second only to Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who died in 2010.

Under Hawaii law, it is required that the appointee be of the same Party as the person they are replacing. As such the state’s Governor, Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, will appoint a Democrats successor to Inouye until a special election can be held. State law also requires that the Governor base his decision on a field of three candidates provided by the state Party. The appointee will then serve until 2014, at which point a special election will determine who serves the final two years of Inouye’s term.

Rep. Colleen Hanabusa

Some of the names being considered for submission to Abercrombie by the Hawaii State Democrat Party include U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, 61, who was just re-elected to her second term the House in, and Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz. Other names include Rep.-elect Tulsi Gabbar, the first Hindu-American elected to Congress and who is set to take office in Januar. Also on the list are former Hawaii governors, Ben Cayetano, 73, and John D. Waihee, 66. Odds are though that Hanabusa will get the nod. She is said to have been Inouye’s preferred candidate to take his place one day, and news reports following Inouye’s death have indicated that the Senator informed Abercrombie that Hanabusa should get his job.

White House 2012 is Now White House 2016 and We’ve Moved to WhiteHouse16.com

   With our wounds licked since the victory of President Obama in November, White House 2012 has moved on and is now looking towards the future with White House 2016.

The new home for the old blog is now WhiteHouse16.com.

There you will find a redesigned website with new features such as a White House 2016 chat service that will enable readers to debate among themselves and the contributors to White House 2016.

While White House 2016 will continue to focus on the evolving race for the White House in 2016, we will also continue to bring you news, commentary, and analysis on the important political issues of the day.

White House 2012 has been covering politics from a conservative perspective now for over two years and great success.  We look forward to continuing our efforts with you, the readers in, the years to come.  So please visit us at and subscribe to us at our new web address;

http://whitehouse16.com/

Also “Like” us on Facebook at

http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse2016

and follow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/GOPwh2016

Congratulations President Obama. So Now What?

  As of 11:45 pm, with Ohio called for the Obama-Biden ticket, while the states of Virginia, and Florida remain too close to call, President Obama has received 290 electoral votes and secured himself a second term in the White House.  For myself, as Editor-in-Chief of White House 2012, I am quite humbled and even embarrassed by the wide disparity in the projections which I presented, and the actual results.  And as an American I am disappointed.  I am disappointed by the fact that our nation will be hindered by a spender-in-chief who has done his best to change the American way instead of doing his best to preserve the American way.

Yet despite the disappointment and even the fear over another four years of Barack Obama, I remain cautiously optimistic that not even Barack Obama can destroy what it means to be an American.  This nation is greater than any one person and it is not defined by any one man.  So while I have lost some faith in the political process, I have not lost any faith in our nation.

Now it is up to President Obama to deal with the divisions in our nation… divisions which I firmly believe he has largely been responsible for.  His divide and conquer strategy of class warfare and his attempts to pit Americans against each other in order to win reelection, now puts him in the unenviable position of having to bridge the existing divide.  His inability to do so will make his victory a hollow one and the mission of his next four years as President impossible.

Not only does Barack Obama become the first President reelected with a smaller Electoral College vote than he was elected with, he also faces an an American electorate and Congress that is probably more divided than it has ever been since the Civil War.  After orchestrating one of the most divisive and empty campaigns in recent history, how he will pivot and try to create goodwill will be interesting.  And even more interesting will be how quickly he can do it because he  must work fast.  With a fiscal cliff only weeks away, true leadership is required.  His lack of leadership has brought us to this cliff and so far there is no indication that it will be able to avoid it.   But hope springs eternal.

So tonight I congratulate our President.  His campaign put together a brilliant ground game.  His Party increased its margins in the U.S. Senate.  And except for a loss of seats in the House of Representatives and possibly even the popular vote, he won and there is no denying it.  But did America win?  And what does his victory mean?  Will it mean more of the same that has gotten us into an economic crisis so severe that it is considered a national security threat?

I don’t know the answers to these questions but I do know that President Obama’s win tonight leaves us with more questions than answers and more uncertainty than certainty.

First Exit Polls in Ohio Show It May Be Tough Going for Romney

Some of the first exit polls being released by Fox are showing that Romney is winning working class whites by 55% to President Obama’s 43%.

While  exit polls usually underestimate trends, if Romney was on a clear path to winning the Buckeye State’s 18 electoral votes, these numbers should be better for him.  These early figures are by no means conclusive but if anything they confirm that the race is close.  A clear sign that Romney was headed to a victory in Ohio would be that he was winning this demographic by at least 15%.  He is not far off that mark and as indicated previously, these numbers are probably understating Governor Romney’s lead with this demographic.  But so far, depending upon which side of the aisle you’re in. all signs are that the election may be too close for comfort for Republicans or Democrats.

Key Early Counties To Watch Tonight For Signs of How the Election Will Go

     If the election turns out to be as close as predicted in the battleground states, many states will not be called for one candidate or the other for hours.  In the case of one of the most critical swing states… Virginia, although polls close there at 7 pm EST, if exit polls from throughout the day and actual returns are very close, we may not know who won till maybe 10:30 pm … some 3 and a half hours after polls have closed.

But signs of who may ultimately win the presidential election can still be found by looking at the returns of several key counties in a handful of early states.  Here are some of the counties in the earliest state closings of the evening which typically act as electoral bellwethers, and what to look for to get an idea as to how things are shaping up for Romney and the President.

7 p.m. Eastern – VIRGINIA:

• Prince William County

2004: Bush 53–47     2008: Obama 58-42

Obama 93,386 to McCain 67,589

If Prince William County shows Mitt Romney trailing Barack Obama, Romney is in trouble.  If he trails the President by more than 2% here, he probably will have no chance of winning Virginia and he will probably be underperforming in many other battleground states.

• Loudoun County

Obama 54-46

Obama 74,607 to McCain 63,328

Romney needs to reverse these numbers if he is going to win Virginia.  If he can not trounce President Obama in Loudoun County, he can not win the presidential election.

7:30 p.m. Eastern – OHIO

These counties will help tell us if President Obama is underperforming. In order for President Obama to be on track to win Ohio, he must produce pluralities that are large enough to discount the pluralities that Mitt Romney will receive on other counties.  If the President is not beating Romney in these counties by  30% or more in Cuyahoga, 25% or more in Franklin and Lucas counties, and 5% or more in Hamilton County, than he is in trouble.

• Cuyahoga (Cleveland):

2004: Kerry 448,503 vs. Bush 221,600 (+226,903);

2008: Obama 458,422 vs. McCain 199,880 (+258,542) (69-30)

• Franklin (Columbus):

2004: Kerry 285,801 vs. Bush 237,253 (+48,548);

2008: Obama 334,709 vs. McCain 218,486 (+116,223) (59-40)

• Hamilton (Cincinnati):

2004: Bush 222,616 vs. Kerry 199,679 (+22,937); Bush 52.5 – 47

2008: Obama 225,213 vs. McCain 195,530 (+29,683) Obama 52-47

• Lucas (Toledo):

2004 Kerry 132,715 vs. Bush 87,160 (+45,555);

2008: Obama 142,852 vs. McCain 73,706 (+69,146) (65-34)

8 p.m. Eastern : FLORIDA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, PENNSYLVANIA

FLORIDA:

• Pinellas County

2004: Bush 49.6 – 49.5           2008: Obama 54 – 45

If Obama is to have any chance in Florida, he must come within at least 5 percentage points of Mitt Romney.  The President will not need to be ahead of Romney here, but if he can limit Romney’s lead in Pinellas County, the President will be underperforming and is not likely to see him defeat Romney in the final numbers.

• Hillsborough County

2004: Bush 53 – 46     2008: Obama 53 – 46

If he is to be competitive in The Sunshine State, Romney needs to produce at least a 5% plurality over the President in Hillsborough and that is cutting is close.  To really feel confident about which way Florida will go, Romney should optimally lead Obama by as much as 8%.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

• Hillsborough County

2004: Bush 51 – 48     2008: Obama 51 – 48

If we get news that Romney or Obama are leading the other by 3% or more here, it may not be an accurate measure of national trends and the final popular vote but it will certainly be a sign of which way New Hampshire will go.

PENNSYLVANIA:

• Chester County

2004: Bush 52 – 47.5  2008: Obama 54 – 45

Romney needs to take Chester County by 7% or more if he is to win Pennsylvania.  Anything less than that will make the race too close to call and likely a win for President Obama.

• Bucks County (Philly Suburbs, north)

Obama 54-45

178,345 to 149,860

If Romney has any chance to win Pennsylvania, he needs to win Bucks County or hold President Obama to a 4% lead or less.

• Delaware County (immediately southwest of Philly city)

Obama 60-38

170,949 to 109,766

President Obama will be in trouble if he does not win Delaware County by at least 55%.

• Montgomery County (northwest of Philly)

Obama 60-39

249,493 to 163,030

If President Obama does not see at least a 10% lead over Mitt Romney here, than the race in Pa will be too close for comfort for him.

• Westmoreland County (Pittsburgh suburbs)

McCain 58-42

96,786 to 69,004

Romney needs to win this County by 15% or more to be in the running for Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.

For a detailed look at signs to look for on election night and poll closing times, visit White House 2012’s Election Night Guide

Below the poll closing times you will find a White House 2012 timeline which includes when each state will probably be projected for Governor Romney or President Obama and it also provides an estimated running total of the Electoral College that each candidate probably will have at the top and bottom of each hour.

President Romney: Candy Crowley’s Freudian Slip

  Candy Crowley is known for jumping the gun on her conclusions.  In the presidential debate she moderated she even took sides as she interjected herself in to the debate by claiming President Obama did call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism, even though he didn’t.  But today, on her Sunday morning CNN talk show, Crowley accidentally let slip the phrase “President Romney”.  Crowley quickly corrected herself but before backtracking, did she let the cat out of the bag making with a slip of the tongue that used a phrase she was subconsciously thinking about an accidentally substituted for the title that she meant to give Governor Romney?  Probably not, but it was good practice for Crowley who in less than 48 hours, will have to get use to saying “President-Elect Romney”.

NY Daily News Endorsement of Romney is a Clear Sign that Obama’s Base Has Eroded

   “The presidential imperative of the times is to energize the economy and get  deficits under control to empower the working and middle classes to again enjoy  the fruits of an ascendant America. So The News is compelled to stand with Romney.”

   And with that, the traditionally liberal oriented Daily News which endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2012.

The endorsement is probably meaningless in terms of its effect on the final result in the election, especially the expected result in New York City which The Daily News covers. Few if any committed voters in the New York tri-state area will be changing their minds based upon this endorsement.  First of all, millions of people in this area are homeless, or without power and busy throwing their belongings in to garbage bags and dragging them to the curb as they try to salvage their flooded homes.  So many of them are not seeing or hearing about the endorsement and those that might, probably won’t be convinced to change their minds because of it.   But while the endorsement may not make a difference, it is still an important verdict.    It is further evidence of a national sentiment which is not being accurately measured in most state and national polls.

Polls which are basing their results on the 2008 turnout models are giving President Obama an overwhelming and undue edge by assuming that voters are as excited by and as enthusiastic with Barack Obama as they were in 2008.  That model does not accurately gauge the sentiments of voters who four years later are disappointed by Barack Obama and as seen in the opinion of the liberal editorial board of the Daily News, that disappointment even exists among the President’s base.

Ultimately, an incumbent can not run away from their record.  President Obama has done his very best to run away and hide from it, but like his own shadow, he has not been able to distance himself from it.  And it is that record which The Daily News based its decision on.

The Daily News dedicated more than half of their editorial outlining the failures in President Obama’s record, including his two centerpiece legislative agenda items… the economic stimulus packages and Obamacare.  And when it comes to the promised hope and change that Barack Obama rode to victory in 2008, The Daily News points out that very little changed and hope under Barack Obama has become a distant memory.  This point is made most apparent in their describing the process that Obama used to pass healthcare reform as a partisan mess.

The Daily News put it this way;

“R.I.P. and never to be resurrected — Obama’s promised bipartisanship.”

Meanwhile, the editorial board of the News did not base their decision entirely upon a desire to vote against Barack Obama.  In their editrorial they offered numerous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.  They write;

“Critically, he has tailored his policies to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

The centerpieces of Romney’s plan call for spending restraint and rewriting  the Internal Revenue code to lower rates by 20%. He would make up much of the  lost revenue by eliminating deductions and loopholes that have made the tax  system a thicket of strangling complexities. On its own, paring the personal and  corporate rules to the basics would catalyze business and consumer spending.”

The endorsement goes on to praise Romney for his energy plan, Medicare proposals, immigration strategy.  In other words, even The Daily News sees Romney as candidate solid enough to vote for and not as a protest vote against Barack Obama.

No, the Daily News endorsement won’t change the minds of many voters and possibly not even any voters at all.  But with two days to go till the election, it doesn’t matter.  As demonstrated by the liberal Daily News, even the President’s base is finding it hard to honestly say that the last four years have been a success and they finding it even harder to say that another four years of the same will be any more succesful.   Most moderates, independents, Libertarians, Republicans and conservative have known that for quite some time now.  But it is becoming more and more obvious that even many Democrats and liberals are accepting that.  Such is not a recipe for victory for Barack Obama.  It is a winning formula for Mitt Romney

The polls are not picking up on those conclusions.  Instead the liberal hacks and leftist manipulators of numbers like Nate Silver over a the New York Times are trying to convince us that Mitt Romney has about an only 20% chance of winning.  If they truly believe that, than they are far less intelligent than I have until now known liberals to be.

More realistic indications of the national sentiment are reflected by those like Michael Barone, one of the most prominent and less partisan political analysts in the nation.  Barone projects a Romney win in the Electoral College with 315 electoral votes.   White House 2012’s own projection is close to Barone’s, with two exceptions.  While Barone projects Romney will take Pennsylvania and lose Nevada, White House 2012 believes Romney will take Nevada but lose Pennsylvania.  We will defer to Barone’s expertise on the issue but a more likely outcome is that the Romney-Ryan ticket will win neither Pennsylvania or Nevada.  But fear not.  Such a result would still produce a Romney victory in the Electoral College with 295 electors. Of course if this is the landslide that both Michael Barone and White House believe we are headed towards, Governor Romney could win both and seal the deal with a 321 to 217 Electoral College win.

Either way, the writing is on the wall.  The momentum remains behind Mitt Romney in these closing days of the campaign and as President Obama continues to wreak of desperation on the campaign trail, a cool and confident Mitt Romney is seeming more and more and presidential on the campaign trail as he continues to win over over undecided voters and energize his base.

So while The Daily News endorsement of Mitt Romney will not change the outcome of the election, it confirms that there exists a negative sentiment of President Obama that has even spilled over to liberal partisans who despite trying quite hard to find any excuse to support their ideological standardbearer, can’t find any.

Critical Reminders Before You Vote

In a society that offers a 24/7/365 news cycle, four years is a long time. Indeed, for most of us, Obama’s first term has been an eternity. Before Tuesday’s epic election, all citizens should take some time and consider carefully the vote they will cast. With that in mind, and in hopes of sparking your memory, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane. Here are a few things that happened during Obama’s first term.

Let’s start where Obama started — healthcare. Remember the dirty deeds involved with the passage of Obamacare? It was truly a low in American politics. There was the Corn-husker Kickback. There was liberal demi-god, Dennis Kucinich, basically saying — even though I’m against it, I’m for it. Of course, political favors will change even a demi-god’s mind. The late Arlen Spector claimed he was promised increased political clout for his vote but after providing it, he got shafted. Think about that for a minute. Spector was a Republican that jumped to the Democrats. He was a turncoat. Yet once the liberals got his vote, they slit his throat. That’s how dirty this deal got.

Do you recall the stupid sales pitch that Obama-care made fiscal sense? The math wizards used 10 years of revenues versus just six years of expenses for that dandy. How about San Fran Nan’s insightful nugget about how Obama-care had to be passed before the people can see what’s in it? As if it was a present waiting under the tree. Crafty one, she is. Little did we know the pretty paper and ribbon was hiding incomparable tax hikes and bureaucratic death panels. Is it starting to come back you?

The Obamacare circus was an insanely partisan environment. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for it. The House of Representatives has had 33 votes to repeal it. The citizenry was so rip-shit when it passed, that numerous Democrats that supported the bill were voted out during the mid-term elections of 2010. By the way, demi-god Denny got changed out too – he lost his seat at the table earlier this year.

But politicians aren’t the only thing that has changed—so has the price tag. Obamacare was originally said to be a $900 billion pursuit. The last analysis came in at over $2.6 trillion. Ultimately, it is a massively huge tax hike. But we have to have a massively huge tax hike because the $700 billion Obama stole from Medicare just isn’t enough to fund it.

Obamacare is a bad law rammed through by liberal-progressive zealots and it is filled with political poison. Consider that retiring Democrats, as if giving their last confession, have spoken out against it. So bad is Obama-care, unions and businesses that support Democrats demanded exemptions from it. Which, of course, they were given because you can’t jeopardize those campaign contributions, now can you? Obamacare has forced businesses to stop hiring and halt expansion. Numerous states have revolted against it because they are revolted by it. All of this is not anti-Obamacare spin. This is documented reality. In June, Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling basically told us that to rid ourselves of Obamacare, we must rid ourselves of Obama. Well, that time has arrived.

But there are many more sweet memories to cherish from Obama’s first term. It’s well known that Obama has violated the constitution numerous times. Legal scholars have been crying foul almost from his inauguration day. He stands at the podium and talks of love of country but undermines or ignores his constitutional responsibilities. His two-faced behavior was never more evident than when, after blathering on and on about his grave concerns regarding the law, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As a reminder, this law allows the president, on just his say, to target American citizens for detention and hold them indefinitely or to actually have them killed. Incidentally, Obama signed this law under cover of New Year’s eve and a holiday. Political cowardice? You tell me.

This is a president that has made illegal appointments during congressional recess, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and has directed the DOJ not to enforce laws on the books. If you do your research, you will find that some scholars rate George Bush’s constitutional behavior as quite poor. You will also find that others feel Obama’s record is worse. Combine these two presidential terms and we have twelve years of presidential government that routinely violates the constitution. If nothing else, Obama needs to be fired to send the message to future presidents that this will not stand. Dictators and tyrants be warned. The citizens have had enough of constitutional violations, unresponsive government and political corruption.

And speaking of corruption—we have Solyndra, Energy Conversion Devices, Raser Technologies and numerous other “green” businesses that have put us in the red. Obama gave political friends truck loads of cash that has ended in hundreds of billions in losses to American tax payers. There is also the on-going Delphi Pension scandal where, as part of the auto bailout, non-union workers lost huge chunks of their pensions while the pensions of union workers went untouched. Does Obama plays favorites?

And some of his favorites are dangerous. He grants government access to individuals and organizations that have been determined by a court of law to support terrorism. The propaganda press hides it from us. But it is true. What is also true is that scandals involving money and political favoritism are one thing. Scandals that result in the deaths of Americans are something else.

Operation Fast and Furious cost Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry his life. And the killing of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata is also suspected to be the result of a Fast and Furious gun. This scandal remains unresolved because the supreme ruler claimed executive privilege to stop the investigation. Could it have reached him? It seems likely. And of course we have the Benghazi consulate attack.

There were four Americans killed in Libya on September 11th when the US consulate was attacked by men armed with guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. These details were included in the very first news reports. Yet, instead of standing tall and assuming responsibility as a real leader would, Obama shunned accountability. He misled the American people by claiming the assault was the result of disgruntled protestors upset by an insignificant and amateurish anti-Muslim video.

The details continue to trickle in but to date we know the administration knew almost from the start that the attack was preplanned. We know that personnel within the consulate sent numerous requests for additional protection well in advance of the attack. All of these requests were denied. We also know some security personnel, as the attack was unfolding, were inexplicably ordered to stand down. They didn’t. They fought and ultimately gave their lives to protect others. Meanwhile, tucked safely away in Washington, Obama and his administration have displayed shameful behavior. Clearly, if Obama intentionally misled the public he should be fired. And if you negate malicious intent, then the incompetence displayed by Obama to protect Americans are the grounds for his dismissal.

But there are other gems that should be considered before you vote. For instance, the country’s credit rating was down-graded under Obama’s watch. The first and only time this has occurred. Recall the debt ceiling battles when House Speaker John Boehner said an agreement was reached but then fell apart because Obama moved the goal posts. And even after changing the game, it was Obama that walked from the table, like a spoiled child taking his ball and running home.

Obama has proven himself to be among the most, if not the most, anti-business president in the history of the country. Statements like you didn’t build that and the economy is doing fine are more demonstrative of his disdain for business and capitalism than they are verbal miscues.

It is no secret that the supreme ruler has decided that he—not private industry—should determine America’s energy future. He has created a militaristic EPA that takes more pride in shutting down power plants than working to plan out a realistic future for America. Contrary to his debate lies, he has severely restricted oil permits for drilling. He also rejected the Keystone pipeline. His “green” agenda has closed hundreds of coal plants. This has forced t he price of energy up but worse, it has destroyed the lives of thousands of citizens that rely on the coal industry. And as you know, when plants and coal mines close the restaurants, stores and other small businesses supported by them start to suffer. It is a Domino Effect that can destroy towns. West Virginia in particular has been hammered mercilessly. The pain within West Virginia is so acute and the bitterness is so severe they gave almost half of their Democratic primary votes to a convicted criminal rather than Obama. Hopefully, on November 6th, with your help, they will see a light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

But his wrath is not just directed at oil and coal. Any business is fair game. Recall the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) brought suit against Boeing because it wanted to build a “non-union” factory in South Carolina. It is just coincidence that after Boeing gave a machinists union a new four-year contract extension the NLRB dropped the case? Gibson Guitar Corp., a guitar manufacturer owned by a Republican contributor, was targeted, raided and its assets confiscated. After months of legal hearings and business interruption, the case was dropped. Gibson was fined $350,000 big ones and spent some $2 million defending itself. Who knows how much money they lost in sales. Lawsuits against businesses and states are a regular tactic used by Obama to get his way. You can look all this up.

His goal is to grow government, not business. His goal is to expand entitlements, not the American economy. He bad mouths the rich implying they all cheated to make their money. He is a classic tax and spend guy that will fund anything with other people’s money as long as it buys him a vote. His approach to leveling the playing field is not to raise people up. Rather, it is to force people down. Romney promotes the idea that he wants to help make everyone rich. Obama seeks a level playing field where everyone is poor. His spread the wealth philosophy is really spread the pain.

Every budget year credited to Obama has had a $1 trillion deficit. That is a staggering and horrifying situation. Try to name anyone working anywhere in any field that would retain his or her job after spending $1 trillion more than was brought in. Obama has done it year after year after year. Obama submitted a 2012 budget and it was rejected 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In April, a proposal based upon an Obama 2013 budget plan lost in the House 414-0. His spending is out of control. Just for kicks, inform the government you can’t pay your taxes because you over-spent last year and see how it responds. And adding $6 trillion to the federal deficit in just one presidential term is an insult to each and every American citizen that will have to pay it back. And their kids. And their grandkids. And their great-grandkids.

But he cares not. American citizens are not his priority. But because we can stop him from meeting his priorities, he hides his socialist agenda as best he can. He spins stories and tells partial truths because if most of America knew what he was really up to, he would be out of a job faster than a West Virginia coal worker. And don’t think he doesn’t have an agenda. Remember, he got caught with an open-mic promising Russia “more flexibility” after he wins re-election. Ask yourself — if you have the courage — what else might he do after re-election? Another open mic incident let us know he true feelings toward Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, we really didn’t need this dose of reality as he has stuck it to Israel regularly during his first term. But it’s nice to have it on record.

Let’s see, what else is there? Obama allowed Seal Team Six operational details to be leaked to try to glorify himself. Perhaps worse, he gave information to a movie crew about the bin-Laden operation so his hero narrative could be captured on film. Think of it, Obama’s daring and personal courage captured on celluloid. No doubt, because Hollywood worships him, it will be an Academy Award winner. But unearned admiration is nothing new for the anointed one. After being elected he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for — well, just because. Obama’s ego and pursuit of celebrity has few limits. His remembrance tribute at the passing of a real American hero, Neal Armstrong, included a picture of himself, not Armstrong.

But no matter how handsome the smile, or how “cool” the persona, it is a facade. Barack Obama is about himself, not the country. His first term and his re-election campaign have demonstrated that he is a small, petty and selfish man. It is now openly discussed within political circles that Obama is a square. He rarely meets with members in his own party and virtually never meets with Republicans. Even now, Democratic politicians across the country are livid because he refuses to support down-ballot campaigns. We know his jobs council hasn’t met since January 17th and that he skips out on his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB). In September, Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post wrote, “Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.” Imagine going to your job, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and blowing off more than half your meetings. How long would you last? This man didn’t even take the time to prepare for his first debate. Is this the type of guy you want running the country?

What we need to remember about Obama before we vote is what we have learned about Obama during his first term. He is a skilled orator, a mediocre politician and a poor leader. He is a political provocateur, not a statesman. Please, do yourself, your loved ones, your neighbors and your country a favor, vote for Mitt Romney so we can toss the Obama administration on the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net 

Unions Impeding New Jersey’s Recovery From Hurricane Sandy

     This is why unions suck.  As nearly a million people remain without power in storm ravaged New Jersey,  utility crews from throughout the country who have generously traveled to the Garden State to provide much needed assistance in the state’s recovery effort, have been told by crews in New Jersey that they can’t help because they are not union employees.

This is precisely why unions have become only slightly more popular than cancer.

While they once had a very necessary purpose that rightly protected the rights of workers, an endless array of federal and state laws have long since been enacted to serve that purpose and in most cases do.  However, nowadays unions are no longer fulfilling a need to protects workers rights, today they are serving the greed and desires of union bosses and mindless dues paying members who are more concerned with hoarding overtime pay for themselves than they are with the well being of the public who provide their salaries and whom they are suppose to be serving

Supporting this claim is the fact that here in New Jersey a utility crew from Huntsville Utilities out of Alabama was headed toward Seaside Heights, New Jersey, one of the hardest hit coastal communities to pounded by Hurricane Sandy.  But before they got there, New Jersey utility crews turned them away because their workers were non-union, and the New Jersey crews are only allowing unionized crews to assist.

If there was ever a better example of just how detrimental contemporary unions have become to our nation, this is it folks.

People are suffering here in New Jersey and yet unions are refusing to speed up the process that could at least alleviate some of that suffering because the people who are willing to help are not union members.

President Obama promised to do everything to make sure that no red tape got in the way of recovery efforts.  Well now is his chance to deliver on that promise.  Unions are in his back pocket.  The two are tighter than thieves when it comes to soaking the public for all their worth.  So perhaps now is a good time for the President to use his influence and denounce the reprehensible and irresponsible conduct of unions.  Because right now  his union buddies are strangling the millions of people in New Jersey suffering in the wake of Hurricane Sandy with the same red tape he promised to cut through.

And by the way, Governor Christie isn’t off the hook on this either.  His big mouth is more than large enough to address this issue loudly and clearly, and if he doesn’t… there is no reason why someone else can’t be given the Republican nomination for Governor next year.

Secretary of Business: Romney Takes Advantage of Obama’s Socialist Mentality

     President Obama recently indicated that if he wins a second term he would appoint a Secretary of Business.  For anyone who understands the legitimate roles that government and the free markets have in our republic, the comment was one which should be enough to demonstrate to them that this President truly is a socialist.   And while Mitt Romney has avoided the use of such descriptions of the President, he did not let the President’s ignorant idea go unanswered.  On Thursday he released a sharp 30 second ad that hammered President Obama for his government-centric vision. (see ad below)

The ad may not play well with President Obama’s hand-out loving, government control seeking, dim-witted, liberal base but there is no need for it to.  Mitt Romney was right when he once told a group of campaign donors that his campaign will never be able to convince those people that he is the better candidate for them or the nation.  But what this ad does do is appeal to Romney’s base, the group of voters who in these closing days of the campaign he must make sure are energized to come out and vote for him and against the President.  This ad does that.  It gives freedom loving people who want less government control, another example of just how antithetical Barack Obama is to that goal.   But more important than even Romney’s base, are the independent voters whom this ad appeals to.

Independent voters tend to be open to good government but apprehensive about more government.   They tend to be more interested in government doing what it is suppose to do properly, than giving government more things to do incorrectly.  Romney’s new ad, entitled “Secretary of Business” helps drive home the point that Barack Obama does not share that view with them.

In addition to the new ad, Romney has also taken that message to the campaign trail where today in Roanoke, Va, Romney told the audience;

“We don’t need a Secretary of Business to understand business, we need a President who understands business “.

  He added “and I do”.

Romney Projected to Win the Electoral College With 301 Votes to Obama’s 237

CLICK HERE FOR THE UPDATED ANALYSIS AND PROJECTION

This Just In: White House Blames Hurricane Sandy On a Movie Released Back in August

  With the devastating force of a superstorm developing from a combination of weather fronts linking forces with Hurricane Sandy approaching the North Eastern United States, the White House is insisting that the deadly storm is entirely the result of a violent supernatural reaction to the release of the movie “2016: Obama’s America” back in August.

According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney;

“This storm is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be unfair and damaging to the President’s reelection.”

Compulsive liar Stephanie Cutter, the President’s Deputy Campaign Manager, issued an alternative excuse for the dangerously powerful force of nature that is about to overwhelm the entire NorthEast quadrant of the nation from Virginia to Maine and New Jersey to Michigan.  Outside of a studio where President Obama was tapping his latest in-depth interview with Bravo’s Andy Cohen for the network’s nightly talk show Watch What Happens, Cutter blamed the storm on George H. W. Bush.  According to Cutter;

There is evidence that this storm is directly related to George Bush’s presidency.  I tend to agree with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright who put just right when she “Democrats should blame George W. Bush forever for the nation’s problems”.

The Obama Sex Tape: The Desperate Attempt to Lure Virgins Into the Voting Booth With Barack Obama

   No, it’s not what you think, but it is an Obama video that uses sex to try to get young women, more specifically brainless, young women, to vote for Barack Obama. (View the ad in the video beneath this post)

The new ad entitled “Your First Time” features Lena Dunham, a rising star among Hollywood’s liberalatzi, who compares a young woman’s decision to have sex for the first time, with a young woman’s first time voting.   Afterall, it’s a very natural comparison, right?

The ad is perhaps the most desperate attempt yet to try to make sure that Barack Obama’s base turns out to vote for him  in the same historic numbers that they did in 2008.  For Barack Obama’s campaign that apparently means he must target a demographic that is not usually sought after… stupid people.

That is the only logical conclusion which one can draw from this latest commercial approved by the President and his campaign.  In it, writer/actress Lena Dunham starts out by very suggestively saying “You’re first time shouldn’t be with just anybody”.  Then she discusses the qualities a girl wants in the first guy she sleeps with.  In this case she says you want a guy “who cares about whether you get healthcare, specifically birth control”.  At one point Dunham even states; “You don’t want to do it with a guy who say’s ‘oh hey, I’m at the Library studying”, when really he’s not out there signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.”

While the ad is not the x-rated porn flick intentionally suggested by the title of this post, it remains to be as inappropriate as any attempt to sincerely describe this new Obama ad as a sex tape.  But with an election that is suppose to be about the future of our nation and the issues important to its future, does anyone really believe that it is appropriate for any serious political candidate to be actively comparing a young girls decision to have sex for the first time, to her first time deciding who to vote for?    It is bad enough that our President runs around talking about Big Bird, binders and bayonets, instead of balanced budgets, block grants, and explaining Benghazi, but do we really need his campaign interjecting sexual intercourse in to the political intercourse?

The ad tries to be creative in a way that is similar to the eclectic HBO series that the actress in the ad writes and stars in.  The series is called “Girls”. 

One critic described the show as…

 “a television program about the children of wealthy famous people and shitty music and Facebook and how hard it is to know who you are and Thought Catalog and sexually transmitted diseases and the exhaustion of ceaselessly dramatizing your own life while posing as someone who understands the fundamental emptiness and narcissism of that very self-dramatization.”

In other words, it’s a ridiculously stupid show about ridiculously stupid characters who put more thought into what they want to wear to bed than who want to go to bed with.

Yet here we have the Obama-Biden campaign using the person who writes and stars in this sleazy piece of pop-culture crap, trying to get young women to pick our President the same way they would if they were picking a partner to sleep with.  Afterall, that’s how I decided who I wanted to vote for the first time I was able to cast my ballot for President back in 1988.  It’s well known that back then I really wanted to sleep with George Herbert Walker Bush, so he got my vote.  And in 1996, I was dyeing to go to bed with Bob Dole.  Isn’t that the determining factor behind all of our votes?

Throughout this election, Barack Obama and his campaign have been doing everything they can to get women to vote for him.  They have tried to paint Mitt Romney as a woman hating, slave driver, who will enact Sharia Law, wrap women up in burkas and cut their tongues out.  They have tried to claim Romney discriminates against women, wants them to receive less pay than their male counterparts, and that he practically wants to rip their uterues out and ban the practice of abortion from sea to shining shining sea.  What they don’t tell you is that while this White House pays its female staff 14% less than women, the Lilly Ledbetter law they brag about had nothing to do with equal pay for women but everything to do with giving women more time to accuse their employer of not giving them equal pay for equal work.  What they don’t tell you is that all Lilly Ledbetter is, is a boondoggle for trial lawyers who can now make tons of money through the litigation of cases that exceeded their statute of limitations.

What they don’t tell you is that over the last four years, women have actually been victims of President Obama’s policies, not beneficiaries of his failed policies.  Under President Obama women are suffering more than men when it comes to our continued stagnant economy.As recently pointed out by Paul Ryan, the poverty rate among women is at a seventeen year high and over five million women have recently been forced out of the workforce because of job killing policies.

What you don’t hear the Obama campaign telling you is the truth about the fact that fewer women are working today than there were when he took office.  You don’t hear them telling the truth about how even if Mitt Romney did want to outlaw abortion in the law under all circumstances, he couldn’t because the most he could actually do is make it possible for the states to decide if they will or will not allow abortions to be conducted within the confines of their own borders.

But while you don’t hear such truths,  you do hear the President’s campaign telling young girls to think with their private parts instead of their smarts.

In many ways the Obama approach to getting women to vote for him is down right insulting.  In addition to making it seem as though women are helpless victims who require the government to prop them up, he is also making women out to be a gender that thinks about nothing else other than sex.  Hence the new ad equating a first time decision to vote to a first time having sex.

Fortunately, most women are not quite as dumb as the President and his liberal compatriots would like to think.  Oh sure, there are the dumb as nails Debbie Wasserman Schultz-like dim wits and Nancy Pelosi-like nincompoops out there in Liberal Lala land.  But most women have more self-respect, integrity, and brains than those two liberal hacks.  Most women would rather support themselves than have the government limit their opportunities and future by forcing them to become dependent on a behemoth government bureaucracy that is ethically and economically bankrupt.   Which is why most women have begun to stop supporting Barack Obama.  They see through the President’s shallow pitches to them and even more than that, they are beginning to be offended by the very shallow characterization of them that is created by the ignorant messages his campaign is sending through their attempts to win women over.  And that’s a good thing because it’s nice to know that unlike Lena Dunham, most women will not have the need for condoms when they step in the voting on Election Day.

Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets: Obama Making a Big Elections About Small Things

    A new ad from the Republican national Committees artfully shows how President Obama is doing exactly what he decried in 2008: making a big election about small things.  Instead of talking about his record he spends most of his time on the campaign trail talking about Big Bird, binders, and bayonets.

It’s evidence of the President’s inability to defend his record and proof that he is  flat out of ideas to get our economy moving again.

Trunkline 2012: Wednesday’s Summary of News from the Campaign Trail – 10/24/12

Today’s Trunkline 2012 brings to you news of a Democrat boss caught promoting voter fraud, a breakdown of Obama’s Benghazi lies, Romney receiving Jewish Weekly endorsement as another actor endorses him too,  why stocks continue to stumble, why Obama thinks he will win, Letterman’s disappointment with the President, and more interesting tales from the trail.

• OUTRAGEOUS: List of Obama’s Interviews Since Benghazi
• America’s largest independent Jewish weekly endorses Mitt Romney
• Is Barack Obama Really a Good Friend to Israel?  See the Video
• Clint Eastwood does new ad for Romney compliments of American Crossroads
• Stocks continue to stumble as traders parse slew of headlines.
• Why Team Obama believes they can win
• Democrat Party Boss Caught on Video Planning Vote Fraud
• Actor Rob Schneider: I’ve Come Around…I’m Not Voting for ‘Crappy’ Obama
• Obama disappoints Letterman
• Obama Lie # 183,473,249.  Said he didn’t propose the sequester, Congress did.
• Florida Republicans Receiving Fake Ineligibility Letters Aimed at Suppressing Their Vote
• Pic of the day:

New Emails Reveal That The White House Knew Far More About Benghazi Than They Admit

     Within at least two and a half hours  of the attack that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that Ansar al-Shariat, an Al Qaeda linked group of militants were taking credit for the attack.

No more than 2 and half hours after the attack, an email  identifying the group claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack was sent to  several locations, including The White House Situation Room, where President Obama was being made aware of the details as the tragedy unfolded.

According to Reuters news agency, the emails specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken responsibility for the attacks. In addition to these emails being dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center the White House Situation Room, they also went to offices in the Pentagon, within the intelligence community, and the FBI,.  All on the afternoon of September 11.

Below you will find copies of the actual missives. The names of the individual recipients of the emails are redacted.

The first email, contains the  subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,”.  It was sent at 4:05 PM, approximately 25 minutes after the attack began.  It describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.

Click on the image for a larger version

The second email was sent at 4:54 PM and it states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared.  It further states that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

Click on the image for a larger version

The third email, was sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time and had the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

Click on the image for a larger version

These documents were released from government sources who are reportedly not connected to any U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity.  So as is the case with most everything we have been learning about the events leading up to and following the attacks in Benghazi, the facts contained in these documents were not released by the White House.  Nevertheless, these facts do contradict just about everything the White House has been saying about what they knew and when they knew it.  And it especially points to attempts by the White House to cover-up the fact that this was terrorist attack, a description which both the Obama White House and Obama reelection team refused to admit to out of fear that it would be get in the way of the President’s reelection chances.

These emails now cast more doubt on the Administration then ever before.  They reveal that the White House knew that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack even though they spent more than two weeks claiming that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that was placed online back in July.  This now makes it hard for anyone not to be suspicious of what else the White House and the President knew.  So far, both the President and Vice President claimed to have not known of two months worth of warnings from Ambassador Chris Stevens about al Qaeda gaining strength in Eastern Libya and of his requests for additional security.  If true there is scandal in just the fact that this information never made its way to the Commander-in-Chief.  If it is not true, and he did know of those developments, than our Commander-In-Chief is absolutely incompetent and directly responsibly for allowing the events that killed Ambassador Stevens and three others to have gotten as far as they did.  But no matter how you look at it, right now there is either one scandal or two.  Are we left with a scandal dealing with an intolerable level of incompetence that killed our Americans in Benghazi, or are we left with one scandal regarding incompetence and another scandal regarding an attempt to cover-up the first scandal?