Saturday 22 September 2012

[wanabidii] Obama solidifies lead over Romney, ahead by five points: Reuters/Ipsos poll



 
Forwarded for your information........
 
 
It is wearing the breast-plate of Truth and voting wisely with the right concious that
we all shall set America Free from the powerful greedy rich........that which will bring
Peace, Unity showed under Love for common good of all; and that people will engage
in efforts for a success story to improve their present and future livelihood and survival.
Judy Miriga
 
 

Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
 
 
 

Obama solidifies lead over Romney, ahead by five points: Reuters/Ipsos poll

By Andy Sullivan | Reuters – Thu, Sep 20, 2012

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama maintains a lead of 5 percentage points over Republican Mitt Romney as he solidifies his advantage in the U.S. presidential race, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.

Obama leads Romney among likely voters by a margin of 48 percent to 43 percent, the daily online tracking poll showed. Obama has led the poll since September 7, shortly after the Democratic convention.

"First it was a bump and then it was a post-convention bump and then it was the remainder of the bump, and now it's just a lead," Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said.

Obama led Romney by double-digit margins on a range of personal attributes, from likability to whether he will protect American jobs to whether he appears presidential. Romney only led on the question of whether he was a "man of faith," by 43 percent to 34 percent.

Obama's lead has changed little over the past week as Romney has suffered a series of setbacks - most notably the Monday release of a secretly recorded video that showed the Republican candidate dismissing Obama supporters as welfare recipients with no sense of personal responsibility.

The video has dominated headlines but is unlikely to sway independent voters who will pick their candidate based on the state of the economy, Clark said. As voters conclude the economy is moving in the right direction, however tentatively, they appear to be moving toward Obama.

Clark said she expects the polls to tighten a bit but gives Obama a 70 percent to 80 percent chance of winning the November 6 election.

The poll surveyed 2,078 registered voters and 1,437 likely voters between September 16 and September 20.

The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of 2.9 percentage points for likely voters and 2.5 percentage points for registered voters.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Jackie Frank)

Israelis fear PM is meddling in US politics

By JOSEF FEDERMAN | Associated Press – 2 hrs 6 mins ago

      JERUSALEM (AP) — It is a taboo for Israeli leaders to give even the slightest hint of favoritism in politics in the United States, Israel's closest ally. So some Israelis are squirming over a perception that their prime minister is siding with Republican Mitt Romney in the U.S. presidential race, in the belief he will take a harder line on archenemy Iran if elected.

      With President Barack Obama holding a narrow lead in opinion polls, Benjamin Netanyahu's perceived strategy looks risky to Israelis who fear their alliance with the U.S. could be in trouble if the incumbent wins.

      "If our prime minister doesn't get along with their leader, it will hurt our relations," said Shai Hugi, 20, a car rental clerk in Jerusalem. "The United States is Israel's best ally, and it's always good that you have a strong friend behind you."

      Netanyahu, convinced that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, says Tehran must be stopped. Claiming international diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions have failed, Netanyahu says the threat of force must be seriously considered. He has urged Obama to declare "red lines" that would trigger an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, coupling his appeals with veiled threats of a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran.

      Obama has rejected these calls, saying diplomacy and U.S.-led sanctions must be given more time and that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. At the same time, American officials have pressed Israel not to attack unilaterally, a move that could set off regional mayhem just ahead of the November election.

      Netanyahu has not backed down. In a message directed at the White House, he recently said: "Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

      Israeli leaders have relied on broad bipartisan support in the U.S. for decades, but Netanyahu has had a rocky relationship with Obama, underscored by public differences over Iran. These agreements, coupled with his longstanding friendship with Romney, have created a perception that Netanyahu backs the Republicans.

      "Whether or not it is true that he is actively taking sides . I don't know," said Alon Pinkas, Israel's former consul-general in New York. "But the pattern of behavior clearly suggests this perception is founded in reality."

      Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israeli relations at Israel's Bar-Ilan University, said Obama, if re-elected, may seek payback from the Israelis by pressuring Netanyahu to make new concessions to the Palestinians to overcome a deadlock seen as a key failure of the U.S. administration.

      Gilboa also said support for Israel is increasingly being seen as a Republican, not bipartisan, issue in America. Recent polls have shown that Republican support for Israel is significantly higher than Democratic support, a reversal from 10 or 15 years ago.

      In interviews on American television this week, the Israeli leader vociferously denied he is meddling in Obama's reelection campaign and said he appreciated the importance of American support.

      "God, I'm not going to be drawn into the American election," Netanyahu told NBC television. "What's guiding my statements is not the American political calendar, but the Iranian nuclear calendar."
      Ari Shavit, a columnist for Israel's liberal Haaretz daily, accused Netanyahu of misreading the American political climate.

      "Netanyahu not only argued with Obama, but turned himself into the declared enemy of many of Israel's friends in the United States. He pushed himself into America's extremist right corner - he pushed all of us into it," he wrote.

      Obama aides have sought to portray relations with Netanyahu as unshaken. But privately, American officials have grumbled about a perception that Netanyahu is telling Obama what to do.

      When Netanyahu travels to New York this week, he likely won't even see Obama. The U.S. president turned down a request for a meeting, citing scheduling issues. A subsequent phone conversation appears to have done little to ease tensions.

      Differences between the men run deep.

      Soon after Obama and Netanyahu both took office in early 2009, they clashed over Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Under American pressure, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to slow down settlement construction for nine months in order to restart peace talks with the Palestinians. When the moratorium expired, Netanyahu refused Obama's appeals to extend it, and a fresh round of peace talks quickly collapsed.

      In one tense encounter between the two, a frustrated Obama walked out of a White House meeting to eat dinner with his family. In another, Netanyahu appeared to lecture Obama on the pitfalls of peacemaking as they sat in front of reporters in the Oval Office. During that same trip to Washington, Netanyahu was warmly welcomed in a speech to a joint session of Congress, sending a message that the Israeli leader maintained strong support on Capitol Hill.

      The U.S.-educated Netanyahu thinks like a Republican on many key issues, whether it be his support for free-market capitalism and disdain for big government, or his security-first approach to foreign policy. Obama's first major foreign policy act, reaching out to the Muslim world in a landmark speech in Cairo while failing to visit neighboring Israel, is still seen as an insult by many Israelis.

      Netanyahu's inner circle includes Ron Dermer, a former Republican activist in the U.S., and Sheldon Adelson, the American casino billionaire who has contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Republicans.

      Netanyahu's friendship with Romney goes back to the 1970s, when they worked together at a Boston investment firm. During the campaign, Romney has accused Obama of throwing Israel "under the bus." And in comments to a closed fundraiser that were captured on videotape, Romney sounded as if he had received many of his talking points directly from Netanyahu as he listed reasons why peace between Israel and the Palestinians isn't possible.

      Few believe any damage in relations is irreversible, and officials in both countries say defense ties remain close. Pinkas, the former Israeli diplomat, said the Iranian nuclear program is so critical that the countries will find a way to work together. He suggested that Netanyahu move quickly in the coming months to repair his relationship with Obama, either through a face-to-face meeting or quiet "back channel" discussions.

      Netanyahu is required to call new elections in the next year or so. Many analysts believe he will do so much sooner, perhaps by the end of the year. Standing strong in the face of American pressure would play well to his hardline Likud Party.

      "Bibi is doing what he should be doing," said Jerusalem bike shop owner Yitzchak Weiss, 66, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. "I don't think (Obama) will throw us into the sea. America is our strongest ally. He can never erase that."

      The radio in Weiss' bike shop was tuned to a local Jerusalem station. As he spoke, a broadcaster announced: "Mitt Romney — let's hope he wins."

      ___

      Daniel Estrin in Jerusalem and Matthew Daly on board Air Force One contributed to this report.

      Congress seeks clarity from election for agenda

      By DONNA CASSATA | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago

      WASHINGTON (AP) — A frustrated Congress quit Washington on Saturday with at least one hope — that the stark choice in the election ahead will give lawmakers clarity about what Americans want from their government.

      They desperately need some direction.
      Lawmakers will return in about seven weeks and face a crowded list of must-do items, topped by avoiding what's become known as the fiscal cliff: the combination of expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts and automatic spending cuts that could drive the country back into recession.

      Two years of rancor and a divided government resulted in one of the least productive Congresses in history. President Barack Obama piled on in his weekly radio address.

      "Without much fanfare, members of the House of Representatives banged a gavel, turned out the lights, and rushed home, declaring their work finished for now," Obama told Americans, while failing to mention the Democratic-controlled Senate. "If that frustrates you, it should — because their work isn't finished."

      In the early morning hours Saturday, the Senate cleared and sent Obama a bill to keep the government running for another six months. The temporary measure is a reflection of lawmakers' failure to complete any of the 12 spending bills by the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year.

      The nation will have to wait until after the election for Congress to deal with taxes, spending cuts, the farm bill and the cash-strapped Postal Service. It comes as no surprise to lawmakers that their public approval has plummeted to about 12 percent.

      "I literally get on a plane with a baseball hat and hope to God nobody knows who I am because they're just going to yell at me," two-term Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said Friday as lawmakers prepared to flee the Capitol.

      Members of Congress are counting on the voters, faced with a straightforward choice in the election, to decide a way forward.

      The candidates and parties present two competing philosophies. Obama and Democrats envision a government with enough resources to help lift up the less fortunate. Mitt Romney and Republicans see a government that gets out of the way, allowing people to make the most in an opportunistic society.

      The difficulty for lawmakers is the presidential election of 2008 and the congressional contests of 2010 contradicted each other.

      "The electorate has sent us, has sent the country two very different messages over the last two elections," said freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C. "They elected the most liberal president in a long time and then the most conservative group to the House of Representatives two years later. That is the conflicting message."

      The upcoming election — "You sort of look at this as the tiebreaker. I have no difficulty with the big issues of the day being solved at the ballot box," Mulvaney said.

      Voters on Nov. 6 will chose a president and decide control of the House and Senate. Republicans say a Romney victory, an increase in their House majority and a majority in the Senate would be a mandate to begin making the changes embodied by the budget of Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, in their postelection session.

      Ryan's spending blueprint remakes Medicare, reduces personal and corporate taxes, targets spending on safety-net programs for the poor and drives down the deficit to a manageable level. Republicans insist it is the only way to get a country deep in debt back on track.

      The election choice, says freshman Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is a "huge philosophical difference. It is based upon will America be a constitutional republic or will it be a socialist, egalitarian, welfare nanny state. I think the choice is pretty simple."

      If the election restores the status quo — an Obama win, a Democratic Senate and a Republican House — Democrats are optimistic that the GOP would be more willing to compromise, with establishment Republicans prevailing over the wishes of their tea party brethren.

      "We shouldn't have to wait for an election for the two sides to come together," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "But for the Republicans, it just might do the trick."

      Even the most hidebound lawmaker wouldn't want the alternative, said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt.

      "Do people want to slog through four more years of dysfunction?" Welch asked. "I think even members of Congress have their limits."

      Said Rooney: "It would be nice to get something accomplished in the 112th" session of Congress.

      Over the past two years, the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-led Senate struggled for consensus on what had been easy in previous years, such as legislation to fund transportation projects. Just over 173 bills became law, far less than the 383 in Obama's first two years, when Democrats held Congress, and less than the 460 in the last two years of Republican Bush's second term with a Democratic Congress.

      Lack of activity isn't the only reason for the lower production. House Republicans eliminated plenty of feel-good resolutions and measures such as those honoring sports teams.

      Based on days worked, Congress has been in session 287 days, compared with 286 in Obama's first two years. Lawmakers are expected to return Nov. 13 for several weeks of work.

      The to-do list is long in addition to the expiring tax cuts and the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts of about $110 billion that kick in Jan. 2 to defense and domestic programs.

      Congress much deal with the five-year farm and nutrition bill, which sets policy for farm safety net programs and funds the food stamp program. Also unresolved are a defense policy bill, cybersecurity legislation and legislation to lift Cold War trade restrictions on Russia, now a member of the World Trade Organization.

      But for all the possibility of clarity and compromise in the lame-duck session, the bitterness is still prevalent. House Republicans point to the numerous bills that went nowhere in the Senate.

      "Look at how many bills this House has passed over to the Senate that are critically important to this country only to see them languish in complete ignominy by the Senate," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. "For them to suggest it's a do-nothing Congress is a fundamental indictment of the Democrat leadership in the Senate. ... The Senate is where things go to die in this environment."

      Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., blamed Senate Republicans for filibustering legislation. He said it was difficult to accomplish anything when the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president.

      The choice, Durbin said, rests with the voters.

      "Decide what you want," Durbin said on the Senate floor Friday. "Decide if you want to send Democrats and Republicans to this Capitol with an awesome responsibility and also with a spirit of consensus and cooperation."

      Mitt Romney fact check: Is he actually against redistribution?

      Mitt Romney is treating 'redistribution' like a dirty word. But while he might like it less than Democrats do, Romney clearly believes in redistribution, too.

      By Liz Marlantes | Christian Science Monitor – 16 hrs ago

      Scrambling to change the subject from his now infamous remarks calling 47 percent of the population "victims," Mitt Romney has jumped on a newly uncovered (though actually very old) tape of then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama saying he believes in "redistribution" of wealth. Excerpts from the Obama tape first ran Wednesday on The Drudge Report – and at a fundraiser Wednesday in Atlanta, Mr. Romney went all-in on the attack:

      "There are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we'll all be better off. It's known as redistribution. It's never been a characteristic of America. There's a tape that came out just a couple of days ago where the president said yes he believes in redistribution. I don't. I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all."

      Let's put aside the fact that the Obama tape is 14 years old – though, as The New Republic's Timothy Noah points out, back then Romney was "still pro-choice, still pro-gun control, still pro-stem cell research, and still in favor of gays serving openly in the military."

      RECOMMENDED: Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up

      The real reason Romney's attack is likely to be a flop is that the president's remarks – when examined in full – aren't likely to be seen by most Americans as particularly controversial. In fact, it's clear that Romney himself essentially agrees with much of what Mr. Obama said.

      Here's the complete text of Obama's comments (as opposed to the shortened clip circulated by Republicans), which was tracked down by NBC News:

      "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level – to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities?"

      First off, Obama's statements about decentralizing delivery systems and fostering competition sound practically Republican (he was specifically criticizing the inefficiency of Chicago public housing and public schools). In context, he's actually arguing for a more streamlined system of government that employs free-market efficiencies and makes redistribution more effective – and by implication, more economical.

      More to the point, however: In his attacks, Romney is treating "redistribution" in general as a dirty word – "He believes in redistribution. I don't" – when, in fact, it's abundantly clear that Romney, too, supports redistribution, "at least at a certain level" (to use Obama's own phrasing).

      What would Romney call it when the government takes in tax dollars and uses them to pay for things like health care for poor folks? Is he saying he would eliminate Medicaid? We think not. Likewise, although Romney would tax the rich at a lower rate than Obama, his tax plan is still progressive.

      As The New York Times's David Firestone wrote Wednesday: "The government has long redistributed wealth, and … the country expects it to do so. That's the point of a progressive income tax, which has been in effect for nearly a century…. The progressive tax remains so popular that Mr. Romney has promised to keep it, and he also insists he doesn't plan to eliminate the safety net."

      Or as CNN's Erin Burnett put it: "Mitt Romney, no matter what words he wants to use or what America he says he wants to believe in, believes in a progressive taxation system…. That is redistribution."

      Obviously, the real question – and a very legitimate one – is, how much redistribution is fair and best for society? In general, Democrats tend to want a little more, and Republicans tend to want a little less. But for Romney to pretend to be opposed to the entire concept of redistribution is totally untrue, based purely on what he himself says he would do as president.

      Obama: GOP walked away from immigration overhaul

      By KEN THOMAS | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

      MIAMI (AP) — President Barack Obama is telling a large Latino television audience that Republicans walked away from comprehensive immigration overhaul and says he has not wavered in his support for changes in immigration law.

      In an interview with the Spanish language channel Univision, Obama said he didn't offer an immigration reform package because he had to deal with the financial crisis. But he said he shouldn't be blamed because he is not "all powerful" and wouldn't have been able to win the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to succeed.

      He pointed to administrative efforts he has taken to permit some young people who came to the United States illegally to avoid deportation.

       
       
       

      --
      Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
      Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
      Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com
       
      Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
      wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
       
      Disclaimer:
      Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
       
       

      0 comments:

      Post a Comment