Barack_Obama_2A

March 5, 2012 = Obama Presses Netanyahu to Resist Strikes on Iran =

=
By [|MARK LANDLER] ====== WASHINGTON — With [|Israel] warning of a possible military strike on [|Iran] ’s nuclear facilities, President Obama urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday to give diplomacy and economic sanctions a chance to work before resorting to military action. The meeting, held in a charged atmosphere of election-year politics and a deepening confrontation with Tehran, was nevertheless “friendly, straightforward, and serious,” a White House official said. But it did not resolve basic differences between the two leaders over how to deal with the Iranian threat. Mr. Netanyahu, the official said, reiterated that Israel had not made a decision on striking Iran, but he expressed deep skepticism that international pressure would persuade Iran’s leaders to forsake the development of [|nuclear weapons]. Mr. Netanyahu, according to the official, argued that the West should not reopen talks with Iran until it agreed to a verifiable suspension of its uranium enrichment activities — a condition the White House says would doom talks before they began. Speaking later on Monday to an influential pro-Israeli lobbying group, the [|American Israel Public Affairs Committee,] Mr. Netanyahu said, “We waited for diplomacy to work; we’ve waited for sanctions to work; none of us can afford to wait much longer.” Mr. Obama, the official said, had maintained during their Oval Office meeting, that the European Union’s impending oil sanctions and the blacklisting of Iran’s central bank could yet force Tehran back to the bargaining table — not necessarily eliminating the nuclear threat but pushing back the timetable for the development of a weapon. “We do believe there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue,” the president said as Mr. Netanyahu sat next to him before the start of their three hours of talks. Both leaders agreed to try to tamp down the heated debate about Iran in their countries, officials said. Mr. Obama said the talk of war was driving up oil prices and undermining the effect of the sanctions on Iran. Mr. Netanyahu expressed frustration that statements by American officials about the negative effects of military action could send a message of weakness to Tehran. Keeping a measured tone may be challenging, however. At the Aipac conference under way in Washington, speakers have delivered fervent calls for tougher action on Iran. The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, used his speech to lay out conditions under which he would introduce a bill in the Senate authorizing the use of military force against Iran. “We have now reached the point where the current administration’s policies, however well-intentioned, are simply not enough,” the Kentucky Republican said. An Aipac official noted that this idea originated with Mr. McConnell, not with Aipac. When Mr. Obama spoke to the group on Sunday, he articulated many themes that he and Mr. Netanyahu discussed the following day in their meeting. Despite their sometimes acrimonious relationship over the Middle East peace process, Israeli and American officials said the two leaders were in sync about the need to stop Iran from joining the ranks of nuclear states. “My policy here is not going to be one of containment,” Mr. Obama said before the meeting on Monday. “My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.” He added, “When I say all options are on the table, I mean it.” Mr. Netanyahu, noting that Iran’s leaders vilify the United States as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan,” said there was no difference between the two countries. “We are you, and you are us,” he said. “We are together.” The prime minister thanked Mr. Obama for affirming, in his speech on Sunday, that “when it comes to security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right to make its own decisions.” An American official said the president was trying to avoid the perception that he was publicly pressuring the Israeli leader, though supporters of Israeli interpreted it as a signal that the United States recognized Israel’s right to make its own decision on military action. Whether Israel could, in fact, carry out an effective strike on Iran without American support is unclear. “My supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate,” Mr. Netanyahu said. Israeli officials said they were gratified by the president’s explicit reference to military force as an option, his rejection of a containment policy and his reaffirmation of Israel’s right to make decisions on its national security. Still, beneath the tableau of shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity, the differences in their views were on display in their statements before the meeting. Mr. Netanyahu said nothing about diplomacy and the sanctions that Mr. Obama has advocated. And while the president repeated his vow that “all options are on the table” to halt Iran’s pursuit of a weapon, he did not explicitly mention military force, as he had on Sunday. Nor has the president embraced another crucial Israeli demand: that military action come before Iran acquires the capability to manufacture a bomb, as opposed to before it actually builds one. The two men did not close the gap on this issue, the official said, though he added that Mr. Netanyahu did not press Mr. Obama on it. Mr. Netanyahu also did not push Mr. Obama to lay down sharper “red lines,” or conditions, that would prompt American action, as had been rumored last week, Israeli and American officials said. Indeed, in his speech to Aipac, Mr. Netanyahu did not speak of preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability, only a nuclear weapon itself. “For the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said. As he has in previous speeches, Mr. Netanyahu dwelt on the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran, he said, was the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, attempting in the past year to murder the Saudi ambassador to Washington. Iran, he said, plotted to destroy the state of Israel “every day, each day, relentlessly.” Israeli officials seemed most gratified with Mr. Obama’s explicit refusal to follow a policy of containing a nuclear-armed Iran. The president said Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would ignite an arms race in the Middle East, raise the specter of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, and allow Iran to behave with impunity in the region. The mood in the Oval Office was somber and businesslike, as it usually is in meetings between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu. But the chemistry was better than it had been in previous meetings, officials said. In their last Oval Office encounter, in May 2011, Mr. Netanyahu summarily rejected a proposal by the president to revive moribund peace negotiations between the Israelis and the [|Palestinians]. With a stone-faced Mr. Obama sitting next to him, Mr. Netanyahu said Israel would not pursue a “peace based on illusions.” This time, the peace process barely figured in the discussions.

March 5, 2012

= Candidates Hammer Obama Over Iran, but Approaches Differ Little =

=
By [|HELENE COOPER] ====== WASHINGTON — To rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, [|Mitt Romney] says he would conduct naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to remind [|Iran] of American military might. He would try to ratchet up Security Council sanctions on Iran, targeting its Revolutionary Guards, and the country’s central bank and other financial institutions. And if Russia and China do not go along, he says, the United States should team up with other willing governments to put such punitive measures in place. As it turns out, that amounts to what [|President Obama] is doing. As their tone on Iran escalates in advance of appearances via satellite Tuesday morning before the country’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the Republican candidates for president have tried to draw stark contrasts between themselves and Mr. Obama when it comes to stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama’s Iran strategy, [|Rick Santorum] said recently on “Meet the Press” on NBC, risked turning the United States into a “paper tiger.” [|Newt Gingrich] said that on Iran, “we’re being played for fools.” On Sunday, Mr. Romney, appearing in Atlanta, offered this: “If [|Barack Obama] gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.” And on Monday, he wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post comparing Mr. Obama to President Jimmy Carter, who he said “fretted in the White House” as Iran held American hostages for 444 days. Mr. Obama and his backers have cried foul, saying the Republican candidates, in the quest to appear tough, are playing a dangerous game that could end up driving Iran closer to a nuclear weapon, as Mr. Obama implied in his own address Sunday to a pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, echoed that in an interview on Monday. “To be making a blanket statement that if he’s president they’ll have one, and if Romney’s president they won’t have one, is the most craven political thing to say,” he said. “To make up differences is to play in Iranian hands.” Mr. Kerry said it could further drive up the price of oil, which helps Iran, as traders on world markets build in expectations of a military strike. Though advisers to Mr. Romney say they see significant differences between his Iran policy and Mr. Obama’s, other Iran experts and former officials in Republican and Democratic administrations say they do not see how the Iran policies being espoused on the Republican presidential campaign trail would do much more to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon. In the case of Mr. Romney, they said, his Iran policy is essentially Mr. Obama’s Iran policy. “They seem to talk more in the realm of their imagination, and what they think will pass as good policy in an election campaign, as opposed to taking into account the realities on the ground,” said Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who has advised the administrations of both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush on Iran. R. Nicholas Burns, the State Department’s top Iran negotiator under President Bush, said: “The attacks on Obama basically say, ‘He’s weak and we’re strong.’ But when you look at the specifics, you don’t see any difference.” For instance, Mr. Romney’s Iran issues statement, [|available] on his Web site, argues that to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, he would “repair relations with Israel, increase military coordination and assistance, and enhance intelligence sharing to ensure that our allied capabilities are robust and ready to deal with Iran.” In addition, Mr. Romney calls for restoring the “regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously.” But in recent years, the United States has always had one or two aircraft carrier strike groups deployed in the Persian Gulf region at a time, although there has generally not been one in the Mediterranean since 2003. However, American carriers do routinely transit the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal on passages to and from the United States and the Persian Gulf. There are also a number of American destroyers and cruisers regularly deployed to the Mediterranean. As for assistance to Israel, while Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel have had a rocky personal relationship, the United States remains Israel’s most dependable ally. Last year, Mr. Obama drew global criticism when he opposed a [|Palestinian] bid for statehood through the Security Council, and his administration boycotted a racism conference in Durban in 2009 on the grounds that it allowed anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denial views. Mr. Obama has also increased military aid to Israel and promoted sanctions against [|Iran’s nuclear program], with Europe agreeing to impose an oil embargo on Iran, a step unthinkable four years ago. Mr. Romney’s backers insisted Monday that the two men were far apart on Iran. “President Obama for three years refused to build on previous administrations’ work to penalize Iran for its enrichment programs with the hopes that the regime would come around to his reset policies and softer world view,” said Richard Grenell, who was the spokesman for the American mission to the United Nations under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama, he said, “is now scrambling to talk tough just in time for the U.S. elections.” Eric S. Edelman, a Pentagon under secretary in the Bush administration and a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said a key difference between the president and Mr. Romney was that Mr. Obama had spent too much time minimizing the military option. Although Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that using military force remains on the table, “he didn’t say, ‘I’m ready to use force to stop Iran from getting a bomb,’ ” Mr. Edelman said. “He has made the credibility of the U.S. military option very low. If you talk to the Saudis and the Emiratis, they don’t think the president is really ready to pull the trigger.” Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting.

=Can Obama Recapture the Hispanic Vote? = Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, is a co-author of “__ [|The Emerging Democratic Majority] __” and the editor of "__ [|America's New Swing Region: Changing Politics and Demographics in the Mountain West] __." ** UPDATED ** MARCH 5, 2012, 2:10 PM

Shifting demographics, particularly the growth of the minority vote, clearly helped Barack Obama win in 2008. And those shifts continue, which will also help Obama in 2012. Minorities should be 28 percent of the vote, a two-point increase among a constituency that voted 80 percent for Obama. But will Obama get 80 percent of the minority vote again? The big wild card here is the Hispanic vote. These voters lack the special tie to Obama that black voters have, they have historically been more variable in their support for Democratic candidates, and there is significant discontent about Obama’s failure to deliver on immigration reform and the high level of deportations that have taken place on his watch.

> It seems that Republicans' anti-immigrant tilt has thrown Hispanic voters into the arms of the Democrats.

However, __ [|recent data] __ suggest that, despite all these factors, Hispanic support for Obama in 2012 may well replicate or even exceed the wide margin he received from these voters in 2008 (67-31). Evidently, while Hispanics may not be completely delighted with Obama’s performance, they find him strongly preferable to the G.O.P. alternatives. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the current anti-immigrant tilt of the Republican Party, especially as displayed in the primaries, has decisively turned off Hispanic voters and thrown them into the arms of the Democrats. If Hispanic support for the president winds up as strong as it now appears, the president could certainly match the 80 percent support he received from minority voters in 2008. If that happens, he has huge leeway to lose white votes without losing the White House. Amazingly, he could approach the levels at which Congressional Democrats lost the white working class (30 points) and white college graduates (19 points) in 2010 and still win the popular vote. That wouldn’t necessarily mean a loss for the G.O.P., but it would put Republicans in a very difficult situation — particularly if the economy continues to improve and takes the edge off that issue. Today’s Republicans have chosen to ignore ongoing demographic shifts on the grounds that doing so would fatally compromise their conservative ideology. If they lose this election, however, the party may finally realize that compromise is necessary. That would not be the end of the Republican Party, but it might be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. > // Join __ [|Room for Debate on Facebook] __ and follow updates on__ [|twitter.com/roomfordebate] __. //

= Obama taps New York donors despite Wall Street ire =


 * [|Election 2012 »]



By [|Alister Bull] NEW YORK | Fri Mar 2, 2012 2:27am EST (Reuters) - President Barack Obama returned to New York on Thursday for a series of high-end fundraising events, tapping Wall Street donors whose generosity has been strained by U.S. financial reforms that many bankers oppose. Facing the multimillion-dollar election war chests of his Republican rivals, Obama has raised $136 million so far in the 2012 presidential race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But only $2.3 million has so far come from the securities and investment industry, compared to the $7.13 million that he had raised from these sources by the same point in 2008. Obama, on his second visit to New York this year, acknowledged he has ruffled feathers in the city since winning the White House in 2008. "Many of you have had to defend me to your co-workers over the last three years," he told a group of 80 guests paying $38,500 each to attend an exclusive dinner at the ABC Kitchen, an upscale restaurant near Union Square in Manhattan. Obama's financial reforms have taken aim at some bank practices by seeking to curb the sort of excessive risk-taking that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis - a lucrative source of profits before the market soured. He also wants Congress to close a loophole that allows hedge fund managers to have their income taxed as capital gains, currently pegged at 15 percent, versus a top income tax rate of 35 percent. On the first of Thursday's four fundraisers, which will likely raise well over $4 million, Obama told an audience of around 100 paying at least $5,000 each that the recovery was picking up pace. "Here in the United States the trendlines are good ... unemployment is still high but it's been moving in the right direction," he told the donors in a soaring, art-covered apartment on the Upper West Side. Obama's fundraising is outpacing Republicans through direct channels, but his opponents are comfortably making up the difference through massive 'Super PAC' donations by wealthy backers who are free to give as much as they want to such political action committees. Obama's Super PAC, Priority USA, had raised $4.2 million by January compared with the $36.8 million raised by Restore Our Future, the Super PAC that backs Mitt Romney, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination to challenge Obama in the November election. "I'm going to need your help," Obama told the first fundraiser. "So I hope you are ready, I hope you will be just as determined, just as fired up, just as ready to go as you were in 2008," he said. Later, at the elegant penthouse of designer Michael Smith, who gave the White House a makeover after the Obamas moved in in 2009, the president acknowledged public worry over the nation's finances but said the remedy was not complex. "Unlike [|Greece], and even unlike England, our deficits and debt are entirely manageable - if we make some sensible decisions," he told an audience of around 90 paying upward of $10,000 each that included singer John Legend and top Hollywood moviemaker Harvey Weinstein. "The question is, are we going to cut education by 30 percent, or Medicare by 30 percent ... because the people in this room, we can't just pay just a little bit more in taxes? Or are we going to solve that problem in a balanced way, where everyone is doing their part?"

= 2012 Election: Compare the Candidates on Issues =

NEW YORK ( [|TheStreet] ) -- With five viable candidates still in the running just nine months before election day on Nov. 6, many voters are still weighing whether to support the Democratic incumbent President __ [|Barack Obama] __ or one of his four remaining Republican opponents: former House Speaker __ [|Newt Gingrich] __, Texas Rep. __ [|Ron Paul] __, former Massachusetts Gov. __ [|Mitt Romney] __ or former Pennsylvania Sen. __ [|Rick Santorum] __. The American public differs greatly in terms of what issues sway their votes. Some voters focus on the candidates' accomplishments during previous jobs in the private or public sector. Others find relevance in personal attributes like age or religion: Ron Paul, 76, Baptist; Newt Gingrich, 68, Roman Catholic; Mitt Romney, 64, Mormon; Rick Santorum, 53, Roman Catholic; Barack Obama, 50, Protestant.

 As election day nears, some undecided Americans begin to put weight on the candidates' standings in the polls or how much __ [|money they have raised] __.Some see education as an important indicator and weigh in factors like highest degree obtained: Gingrich: PhD Modern European History, Tulane University; Obama: J.D., Harvard Law School; Paul: M.D., Duke University Medical Center; Romney: J.D. Harvard Law School and M.B.A., Harvard Business School; Santorum: M.B.A, University of Pittsburgh and J.D., Dickinson School of Law. But despite all these background factors, most Americans base their voting on the candidates' positions on issues. Below is a glimpse of some issues that have come up during Campaign 2012 and the candidates' positions. Such positions are not always easy to paraphrase, because the positions are nuanced or complex or evolving or simply unclear, so be sure to check the candidates' campaign websites: __ [|Newt Gingrich] __, __ [|Barack Obama] __, __ [|Ron Paul] __, __ [|Mitt Romney] __ and __ [|Rick Santorum.] __ "Pro Life" - Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum. "Pro Choice" - Obama Believes that human activity has brought about climate change: Obama, __ [|Paul] __ Does not believe humans have caused climate change: Santorum Believes the science is unsettled: __ [|Gingrich] __, Romney Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: __ [|Gingrich] __, __ [|Paul,] __ __ [|Romney,] __ __ [|Santorum] __ Uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: __ [|Obama] __
 * Abortion**
 * Climate Change**
 * Health Care, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act**

GOP Hopefuls Losing Ground to Obama Among Latinos, Poll Say

Read more: [|http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/05/gop-hopefuls-losing-ground-to-obama-among-latinos-poll-says/#ixzz1oItOm6i1]

New York – Despite growing disappointment in his handling of immigration issues, Latino voters favor President [|Barack Obama] by six-to-one over any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, showed a Fox News Latino poll conducted under the direction of Latin Insights and released Monday. The national poll of likely Latino voters indicated that 73 percent of them approved of Obama’s performance in office, with over half those questioned looking favorably upon his handling of the healthcare debate and the economy, at 66 percent and 58 percent respectively. Released on the eve of the Super Tuesday primaries in the race for the GOP nomination, the Fox News Latino poll shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 35 percent of Latino voter support, to Texas Rep. Ron Paul's 13 percent, former Speaker of the House [|Newt Gingrich] 's 12 percent, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's 9 percent. But the poll shows that the overwhelming choice among likely Latino voters is President Obama. In head-to-head match-ups none of the GOP candidates would garner more than 14 percent of the Latino vote come November, the poll said. "This is what we're seeing across the country," said Gabriela Domenzain, Obama campaign spokesperson. "The more Latinos learn about the candidates, the more they reject them." Caught-up in the throes of a bitterly contested primary season, the GOP hopefuls seem to be losing traction among Latino voters. While the poll indicates that four of five Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 would vote for him later this year, Latinos who voted for Republican Arizona Sen. [|John McCain] four years ago are now divided between voting for Obama and the Republican candidates. Forty percent said that they favored Obama while 38 percent said they would vote for Romney. Obama also leads Santorum 38 percent to 34, and Gingrich 40 percent to 38. [|McCain] grabbed 31 percent of the overall Hispanic vote. "The 2012 election will be a pocketbook election, and Barack Obama has failed Latinos on the economy," said Alexandra Franceschi, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. "From higher unemployment to record debt to skyrocketing gas prices, Latinos are worse off than they were four years ago because of Obama’s record of broken promises and failed policies." The shift in Latino voter leanings may reflect a growing divergence with the GOP over issues -- in particular, over immigration. Although immigration came in fourth among issues cited as important by likely Latino voters --to jobs and the economy, education, and health care-- voter responses on immigration show a wide discrepancy with the positions of GOP hopefuls. The Fox News Latino poll show likely Latino voters across the country overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act (90 percent), favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (85 percent), and believe undocumented workers help to grow the U.S. economy (82 percent). During the February Arizona debate, both Romney and Santorum backed controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and all the candidates said they favored a stricter immigration policy. Romney said he looked to Arizona’s controversial approach to immigration as a model and added that if he was president he would stop all federal lawsuits against state laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070. He also reaffirmed his support for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and mandating the use of E-Verify to deter undocumented immigrants from finding employment. Gingrich proposed during the debate the construction of a double fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and the deployment of thousands more Homeland Security Department employees to border areas. Santorum also said that he would beef up efforts to stop undocumented immigrants from entering the country. "I think what you're going to see when the results come in is that we're going to see a good amount of Latino support," said Sylvia Garcia, the Gingrich campaign's National Hispanic Inclusion director. "We're finding a high amount of support among the Latino Evangelical community." Paradoxically, immigration is also the issue in which President Obama receives his lowest approval rating among Latino voters --some 41 percent disapprove of the job he is doing regarding immigration, with the number climbing higher to 56 percent among Latinos between the age of 35 and 44. One area where Republicans could gain back ground among Latino voters is by the choice of Vice President. Almost one-third of Latino voters say that they would consider voting Republican if there were a Latino on the ticket. Both Florida junior Sen. Marco Rubio and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martínez have been mentioned as possible names for the eventual GOP presidential ticket. Almost one-quarter of Latinos said they would be more willing to vote for a Republican if Rubio was on the ticket, with this number rising to almost four-in-ten in Florida, a potential swing state. About one-fifth of likely Latino voters would be more willing to vote for a Republican if Martínez got the VP nod. The Fox News Latino/Latin Insights poll was compiled through a telephone survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,200 likely Latino voters. The respondents were given the option of completing the survey in English and Spanish. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 2.7 percent with 95 percent confidence.

Read more: [|http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/05/gop-hopefuls-losing-ground-to-obama-among-latinos-poll-says/#ixzz1oItJIEED]

= Palestinians taken aback by Obama embrace of Israel, but expect little in US election year =

By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, March 5, 2:29 PM
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinians say they are disappointed in President Barack Obama but not surprised by his especially warm embrace of Israel in an election year. Still, his weekend speech to the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC was perceived in the West Bank as unprecedented in its show of support for Israel. It raised eyebrows even among hardened skeptics who have lost faith in Washington’s ability to serve as an honest Mideast broker. “It was very clearly an election speech, to win votes and influence people in the U.S. and Israel,” Hanan Ashrawi, a senior PLO official, told reporters Monday. “We couldn’t believe that the U.S. president is out there to prove that he is good for Israel, that for three years he has done everything Israel wanted,” she said, referring to Obama’s repeated reminders to AIPAC that as president he often sided with the Jewish state. “In many ways, people saw that as demeaning,” Ashrawi said of Obama’s appearance. In his speech, Obama made only a passing reference to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that he has been unable to restart since they broke down in 2008. His speech to AIPAC and Monday’s White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were dominated by Iran and how to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons. Israel hints at a possible military strike, while Obama says sanctions must be given more time. Palestinian officials warned that it’s dangerous to push the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the sidelines, and that as long as it festers, there can’t be stability in the Middle East. “What interests us is that the United States be committed to a real peace process, but the U.S. is busy with the elections,” said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. He complained that the world is standing by while Netanyahu continues to build settlements on occupied lands the Palestinians want for their state. Obama’s Mideast efforts ran aground soon after he became president, when he failed to get the two sides to agree to the rules of renewed negotiations. Abbas says he will not negotiate as long as Israel expands settlements. He also insists that Netanyahu accept the cease-fire line of the eve of the 1967 war — in which Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem — as the baseline for talks on the borders of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has rejected both demands, and also retreated from positions held by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, including a willingness to partition Jerusalem. Olmert’s policy did not lead to an agreement. Palestinian officials say they expect little from the U.S. until after November’s presidential election. Obama predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush became more engaged in the Middle East in their second terms, once domestic electoral concerns played less of a role. Palestinian analyst Majed Swailim said Netanyahu can pressure Obama during an election year by rallying the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., but that this will change after November. “The U.S. administration knows that handling the Palestinian issue is very crucial in addressing the changes in the region” following the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring that swept the Middle East last year, he said. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

= Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates As Donors Flee To Romney =

 First Posted: 02/ 2/2012 5:59 pm Updated: 02/ 2/2012 6:20 pm  President Barack Obama has been abandoned by the world of finance. Over the course of the 2012 election, his presidential campaign has received about one dollar in donations from the financial sector for every five dollars given to his top competitor, Mitt Romney, according to figures provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). During the final three months of 2011, however, the margin has widened dramatically. The Huffington Post examined campaign contributions from four highly influential finance sectors to both Obama and Romney. Using categories compiled by CRP, the 20 most politically active commercial banks, hedge funds, securities firms and "private equity and investment" firms were pinpointed (i.e. those with the strongest history of political donations); some lists overlapped. But between them, 68 separate companies were identified. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Romney raised $1.49 million from employees of those 68 companies while the president's reelection campaign raised just $127,000 -- an 11.7-to-1 ratio. It was the most lucrative quarter for Romney yet. "Clearly it was a great quarter for Romney, in terms of fundraising from Wall Street and from securities and banking firms, in particular the biggest one," said Sheila Krumholz, CRP's executive director. "It is not surprising that he was able to do that. It is just surprising how rapid the shift has been towards him and away from Obama." The abandonment of the president by the financial sector has, indeed, been remarkable in scope and speed. Some of the very companies whose employees cut checks for Obama in 2008 now seem fully devoted to funding his competitor in 2012. Why the world of finance is leaving Obama is a subject of some irritation among Democratic fundraisers. __ Wall Street executives, after all, have thrived under the Obama administration. __ The Justice Department has been notoriously slow in pursuing investigations of fraud. Ditto for the Securities Exchange Commission. But by this juncture in the 2012 election, however, advisers to the president's reelection team have all but publicly conceded that they will lose the battle for financial sector donors to Mitt Romney and likely by a steep amount. They offer several explanations for this. One is to point to rhetorical slights and a series of policy proposals -- eliminating taxes on carried interests and raising tax rates on millionaires -- that this administration has made, targeting the world of finance. "It is obvious why they're abandoning Obama," said John Catsimatidis, the chairman and CEO of the Red Apple Group and Gristedes Foods and a disaffected Democrat. "I was a Clinton Democrat and I love Bill Clinton and I love Hillary. But when Obama attacks the business world on a daily basis, what do you want to say? That's what it comes down to." Another explanation holds that the administration's reputation on Wall Street has been tarnished so badly that potential donors shudder at having their names listed on the FEC logs. "Wall Street guys that write checks to this administration will come under peer pressure by many of their colleagues because they are convinced that somehow Obama and his administration has the financial services industry in their sights and are trying to hurt them," said one top Democratic fundraiser. The most common explanation, however, is that the finance industry simply has a better partner in Obama's opponent. "They have a very warm place to flee to," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund. "It is no mistake that they are giving to him. He is a candidate by and for Wall Street, he has lived and breathed Wall Street all his life." Many of the companies that are feeding Romney's finance sector fundraising are led by chairmen and CEOs who have been critical of Obama over the past three years. Chief among those is Blackstone Group Chairman Stephen Schwarzman, who compared a policy to increase taxes on private equity firms __ [|to Hitler invading Poland in 1939.] __ In 2008, Blackstone employees sent $132,000 to the Obama campaign. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Obama only received $7,618 from Blackstone employees, compared to the $90,750 pulled in by the Romney camp. Another hedge fund manager, Kenneth Griffin of Citadel, supported Obama in 2008, leading his employees to contribute more than $205,000 to the campaign. By the time of the election, however, he had switched his allegiance to John McCain. Since the election, he has openly __ [|discussed his "frustration" with Obama's policies] __, stating that he is "greatly concerned about the fiscal instability of the U.S." In the fourth quarter of 2011, Citadel employees completely abandoned Obama, contributing nothing to his campaign while giving $120,500 to Romney. The decision by a number of potential Republican presidential candidates not to run fueled Romney's end-of-the-year surge in Wall Street, hedge fund and private equity contributions. In particular, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's demurral freed up __ [|major Wall Street figures] __ to come out for Romney. This group of late deciders was lead by Elliott Management's Paul Singer, a Christie fan and one of the most sought-after Republican fundraisers. Romney scored another important Wall Street figure, JPMorgan Chase Vice President James Lee, who had been waiting for Christie's decision. Elliot Management employees and JPMorgan Chase employees gave $108,525 and $183,018, respectively, to the Romney campaign at the end of the year. Obama received just under $19,500 from JPMorgan Chase sources and nothing from Elliot Management sources during that time period. The data that The Huffington Post examined did not include money raised by the Democratic National Committee -- which has a much higher cap on the donations it can receive. But even that addition doesn't seem likely to level the playing field for the president. Should he win the nomination, as seems likely, Romney will be able to turn to the RNC for campaign finance help as well. Neither of those totals, meanwhile, include the money that the financial sector is sending to super PACs, which have virtually no restrictions on how much they can raise and from whom. Restore our Future, a super PAC run by former Romney staffers, raised more than $30 million by the end of 2011, much of it from financial services sources, __ according to Pro Publica __. One top Democratic operative explained that party officials were biting their nails in nervous anticipation for Democratic hedge fund types to start donating to Obama-backing super PACs. Publicly, however, the posture is that the president will have a small donor base large enough to overcome both this disparity and the remarkable abandonment of the financial services sector at large. "I believe that the Obama campaign is going to have more than adequate resources to run a very full-throated campaign, and no matter how much money the other side has, we are going to have sufficient resources to carry our message and carry the day," said Dennis Mehiel, the Chairman, CEO and sole shareholder of the Four M Corporation. "It doesn't matter what the super PACs have."
 * Goldman Sachs employees, who donated more than $1 million to Obama's first run for the White House, gave Romney more than $106,000 in the fourth quarter of 2011. Obama received just over $12,000 during that same period.
 * Bank of America employees, who donated more than $388,000 to Obama in 2008, gave Romney more than $77,000 in the fourth quarter of 2011. Obama received just under $16,000 during that same period.
 * CitiGroup employees, who donated about $730,000 to Obama in 2008, gave Romney more than $196,000 during the fourth quarter of 2011. Obama received $3,842 during the same period.

[]

=Obama admin. defends birth control order as Boehner calls for broader conscience exception=

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, February 2, 3:19 PM
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration scrambled Thursday to contain a growing election-year outcry over its decision that church-affiliated employers must cover birth control regardless of their religious principles. House Speaker John Boehner, a Catholic, called the requirement unconstitutional while White House spokesman Jay Carney said it is part of a reasoned policy to promote women’s health and does not encourage abortion. Under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, most employers and insurance plans will have to cover birth control free of charge as preventive care for women. Churches and houses of worship do not have to follow that requirement, but administration officials recently announced that many religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals, colleges and charities must comply after a year’s phase-in period. The wave of protest that followed has clearly taken the White House by surprise. Catholic and Protestant evangelical leaders criticized the decision as infringing on freedom of religion. Some religious liberals have called it politically risky for Obama in a close election year. “I think this mandate violates our Constitution,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday. “I think it violates the rights of these religious organizations. And I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look at this.” White House spokesman Carney said the decision will stand. That’s unlikely to silence critics. Also joining in disapproval was a group that includes Democratic lawmakers who helped engineer final passage of the health care law. The group, Democrats for Life of America, represents anti-abortion lawmakers who provided the margin of victory in Congress. “Forcing religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs is very clearly wrong,” said Kristen Day, its executive director. The White House defended the decision. Spokesman Carney said the president has no intention of trespassing on religious liberty. “There was extensive and careful consideration as this policy was developed and a decision was made. And the issue here is we want to be sure women, all women, have access to good health care,” he said. Asked if there’s a debate within the administration about reconsidering, Carney responded: “No, there’s not a debate ... the decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration.” At issue is a provision of the health care law that requires insurance plans to cover preventive care for women free of charge to the employee. Last year, an advisory panel from the respected Institute of Medicine recommended including birth control on the list, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius agreed, issuing a new federal regulation last summer. That rule, however, exempted houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions whose primary purpose is to promote religious belief. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places would not be required to cover contraceptives, it specified. Neither would religious organizations whose purpose is to promote belief, and that primarily employ and serve people of the same creed. It was a different story for religious-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social agencies that serve the public broadly. Although many of those employers had not traditionally covered birth control, the new regulation will require them to do so. For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect August 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting January 1, 2014. Women working for secular enterprises from profit-making companies to government will have access to the new coverage starting January 1, 2013, in most cases. Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered as tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives. There is no mandate, however, to cover abortions. Last Sunday, Catholic bishops in more than 140 dioceses issued statements denouncing the decision that were read at each weekend Mass. The head of the Catholic Health Association, a hospital trade group that supported Obama’s health care law, said she was “stunned” by the administration’s decision. “It’s not the issue of contraception, but religious freedom,” said Sister Carol Keehan. “It’s not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further.” An AP-GfK poll from December found that Catholics supported Obama by 49 percent to 45 percent in a matchup with Republican front runner Mitch Romney. But among Catholics who attend Mass weekly, Romney had the edge by 45 percent to 52 percent.

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman, Rachel Zoll, Jennifer Agiesta and Erica Werner contributed to this report. Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. © The Washington Post Company Republican response to State of the Union 2012 media type="custom" key="12331584"

Obama Links Raising Taxes to Christianity- National Prayer Breakfast Feb 2, 2012 media type="youtube" key="j06TTdKT64U" width="425" height="350"

Obama State of the Union 2012 Video with special features

media type="custom" key="12331628"

OBAMA BIOGRAPHY- Katita Miller and Katherine Ryan Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to a Kenyan father and an American mother. [|Obama’s parents], Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham met while studying at the University of Hawaii.

Barack Obama Moving To Indonesia in 1967
Obama spent his early years in Honolulu before moving to Indonesia at the age of six. [|Obama’s parents] separated when he was two years old. His mother later married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian. The family moved to Jakarta in 1967. After staying for four years in Indonesia, Obama returned to Honolulu to study at the Punahou school. He studied at the Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before moving to the Columbia University in New York City. Obama graduated from the Columbia University in 1983 with a major in Political Science and a specialization in International Relations.

Barack Obama Biography – Work Life
After his graduation, Obama worked at the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group. In 1985, he moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer. Later, in 1988, Obama joined the Harvard Law School. He went on to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated from the law school in 1991. Barack Obama met Michelle Robinson in 1989, whom he married in 1992. Michelle and Barack have two daughters. Obama played several roles professionally between 1993 and 2004. He worked as a lawyer for the law firm, David, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also worked as a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 to 2004; he taught constitutional law at the law school. Obama also served as a board member at the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization.

Barack Elected To Senate
In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois senate. He was elected again in 1998 and 2002. In 2000, he lost a primary for the United States House of Representatives. In 2003, Obama was appointed the chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee. Obama became a United States Senator in late 2004 to become the fifth Afro-American Senator in history. He secured 70% votes. In 1991, while being in-charge of a voter registration drive in Chicago, Obama began writing a book of memoirs that was later published in 1995 as Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Obama wrote another book later that was published in 2006. The book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream went on to become a part of the New York Times Best Seller list.

Working On Reforms And Policies
Once elected into the state Senate of Illinois, Obama took deep interest in reforms and policies, making and changing some consequently. He initiated the requirement of mandatorily videotaping interrogations in cases of homicide. He enthusiastically participated in creating the Earned Income Tax Credit program for state, meant for helping people in the low-income groups. He went on to initiate reforms in the fields of healthcare and childcare. An interesting law that came into being because of him was the law to monitor racial profiling. It became mandatory to note the race of the drivers that are detained by the state police. Following his election into the United States Senate, Obama showed extreme interest in immigration reforms and border security improvements. He became a co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act; the act was introduced by John McCain, his Republican rival who ran for the United States Presidential post. A year later, Obama also favored another security bill that later became the Secure Fence Act. Obama, in association with Tom Coburn, brought the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act into being; the act made the government expenditure transparent via a website called the USA spending.gov. Also, in association with the Republican, Richard Lugar, a Lugar-Obama program went on to make additions to the existing Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept. In 2007, Obama, in association with Senator Russ Feingold, brought into being the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. He later introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.

Obama Running For Presidency
Last year in February, he declared that he will be running for the post of the President of the United States. He has showed his dislike to negative campaigning. Obama has been advocating an end to the war in Iraq, a universal health care mechanism and increased energy independence as his most important agendas in his manifesto. Obama has surprised his critics by raising enormous amount of money through his campaigns. In January this year, his campaign raised 36.8 million US dollars, the highest amount raised ever in the Democratic primaries. In the first six months of his campaign last year, 58 million US dollars were raised, breaking earlier records. Following a series of hate mail sent to Obama, the US Secret Service instated special protection for Obama. “Fired up! Ready to go!” is a cry doing the rounds at Obama’s campaigns.

Barack Obama – President of the USA
Barack Obama has been voted as 44th president of the USA. He won the election battle against John McCain. He is the first afro-american president. Obama has been dubbed as the most liberal Senator in his political life. In his personal life, he plays basketball and claims to be a good poker player.

President Obama vs. Republican Candidates <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Romney vs. Obama
 * Recent Polls- Katita Miller and Katherine Ryan**
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Romney (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 11/8 - 12/1 ||= -- ||= 45.6 ||= 44.7 ||= Obama +0.9 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 11/30 - 12/1 ||= 1000 LV ||= 42 ||= 40 ||= Obama +2 ||
 * < [|Quinnipiac] ||= 11/14 - 11/20 ||= 2552 RV ||= 45 ||= 44 ||= Obama +1 ||
 * < [|FOX News] ||= 11/13 - 11/15 ||= 914 RV ||= 42 ||= 44 ||= Romney +2 ||
 * < [|CNN/Opinion Research] ||= 11/11 - 11/13 ||= 925 RV ||= 47 ||= 51 ||= Romney +4 ||
 * < [|Pew Research] ||= 11/9 - 11/14 ||= 1576 RV ||= 49 ||= 47 ||= Obama +2 ||
 * < [|PPP (D)] ||= 11/10 - 11/13 ||= 800 RV ||= 46 ||= 43 ||= Obama +3 ||
 * < [|McClatchy/Marist] ||= 11/8 - 11/10 ||= 872 RV ||= 48 ||= 44 ||= Obama +4 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Gingrich (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 11/8 - 11/29 ||= -- ||= 48.7 ||= 43.0 ||= Obama +5.7 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 11/28 - 11/29 ||= 1000 LV ||= 43 ||= 45 ||= Gingrich +2 ||
 * < [|Quinnipiac] ||= 11/14 - 11/20 ||= 2552 RV ||= 49 ||= 40 ||= Obama +9 ||
 * < [|FOX News] ||= 11/13 - 11/15 ||= 914 RV ||= 46 ||= 41 ||= Obama +5 ||
 * < [|CNN/Opinion Research] ||= 11/11 - 11/13 ||= 925 RV ||= 53 ||= 45 ||= Obama +8 ||
 * < [|Pew Research] ||= 11/9 - 11/14 ||= 1576 RV ||= 54 ||= 42 ||= Obama +12 ||
 * < [|PPP (D)] ||= 11/10 - 11/13 ||= 800 RV ||= 49 ||= 43 ||= Obama +6 ||
 * < [|McClatchy/Marist] ||= 11/8 - 11/10 ||= 872 RV ||= 47 ||= 45 ||= Obama +2 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Cain vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Cain (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 11/8 - 11/27 ||= -- ||= 49.6 ||= 39.4 ||= Obama +10.2 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 11/27 - 11/27 ||= 1000 LV ||= 46 ||= 36 ||= Obama +10 ||
 * < [|Quinnipiac] ||= 11/14 - 11/20 ||= 2552 RV ||= 50 ||= 37 ||= Obama +13 ||
 * < [|FOX News] ||= 11/13 - 11/15 ||= 914 RV ||= 47 ||= 38 ||= Obama +9 ||
 * < [|CNN/Opinion Research] ||= 11/11 - 11/13 ||= 925 RV ||= 53 ||= 43 ||= Obama +10 ||
 * < [|Pew Research] ||= 11/9 - 11/14 ||= 1576 RV ||= 54 ||= 42 ||= Obama +12 ||
 * < [|PPP (D)] ||= 11/10 - 11/13 ||= 800 RV ||= 48 ||= 41 ||= Obama +7 ||
 * < [|McClatchy/Marist] ||= 11/8 - 11/10 ||= 872 RV ||= 49 ||= 39 ||= Obama +10 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Perry vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Perry (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 11/8 - 12/5 ||= -- ||= 50.2 ||= 40.0 ||= Obama +10.2 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 12/4 - 12/5 ||= 1000 LV ||= 46 ||= 34 ||= Obama +12 ||
 * < [|CNN/Opinion Research] ||= 11/11 - 11/13 ||= 925 RV ||= 52 ||= 45 ||= Obama +7 ||
 * < [|PPP (D)] ||= 11/10 - 11/13 ||= 800 RV ||= 49 ||= 39 ||= Obama +10 ||
 * < [|Pew Research] ||= 11/9 - 11/14 ||= 1576 RV ||= 53 ||= 42 ||= Obama +11 ||
 * < [|McClatchy/Marist] ||= 11/8 - 11/10 ||= 872 RV ||= 51 ||= 40 ||= Obama +11 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Paul vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Paul (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 10/28 - 11/13 ||= -- ||= 46.7 ||= 39.0 ||= Obama +7.7 ||
 * < [|PPP (D)] ||= 11/10 - 11/13 ||= 800 RV ||= 47 ||= 41 ||= Obama +6 ||
 * < [|McClatchy/Marist] ||= 11/8 - 11/10 ||= 872 RV ||= 49 ||= 41 ||= Obama +8 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 10/28 - 10/29 ||= 1000 LV ||= 44 ||= 35 ||= Obama +9 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Bachmann vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Bachmann (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 11/8 - 11/16 ||= -- ||= 49.7 ||= 35.7 ||= Obama +14.0 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 11/15 - 11/16 ||= 1000 LV ||= 45 ||= 33 ||= Obama +12 ||
 * < [|PPP (D)] ||= 11/10 - 11/13 ||= 800 RV ||= 50 ||= 39 ||= Obama +11 ||
 * < [|McClatchy/Marist] ||= 11/8 - 11/10 ||= 872 RV ||= 54 ||= 35 ||= Obama +19 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Huntsman vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Huntsman (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 8/29 - 12/3 ||= -- ||= 46.3 ||= 37.7 ||= Obama +8.6 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 12/2 - 12/3 ||= 1000 LV ||= 41 ||= 34 ||= Obama +7 ||
 * < [|Reuters/Ipsos] ||= 9/8 - 9/12 ||= 932 RV ||= 51 ||= 37 ||= Obama +14 ||
 * < [|ABC News/Wash Post] ||= 8/29 - 9/1 ||= RV ||= 47 ||= 42 ||= Obama +5 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Santorum vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Santorum (R) ||~ Spread ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 10/2 - 10/3 ||= 1000 LV ||= 45 ||= 34 ||= Obama +11 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 7/10 - 7/11 ||= 1000 LV ||= 45 ||= 31 ||= Obama +14 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] <span style="background-color: #990000; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center;">General Election: Republican vs. Obama
 * ~ Poll ||~ Date ||~ Sample ||~ Republican (R) ||~ Obama (D) ||~ Spread ||
 * < RCP Average ||= 11/2 - 12/4 ||= -- ||= 44.0 ||= 43.0 ||= Republican +1.0 ||
 * < [|Rasmussen Reports] ||= 11/28 - 12/4 ||= 3500 LV ||= 49 ||= 41 ||= Republican +8 ||
 * < [|Politico/GWU/Battleground] ||= 11/6 - 11/9 ||= 1000 LV ||= 43 ||= 43 ||= Tie ||
 * < [|Gallup] ||= 11/3 - 11/6 ||= 889 RV ||= 42 ||= 43 ||= Obama +1 ||
 * < [|NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl] ||= 11/2 - 11/5 ||= RV ||= 42 ||= 45 ||= Obama +3 ||

[|More Polling Data] | [|News] Katita Miller and Katherine Ryan __**PLATFORM FOR 2012**__


 * Economy- tax cuts for under 250,000/yr, Stimulus Bill funds infrastructure projects to make more jobs
 * Budget deficits- freeze pay for 2 years for federal workers, reduce deficit (amount by which some measure of government revenue falls short of government spending), doesn’t want premature spending cuts because economy is still recovering
 * Health care- national healthcare system where employers have to give health insurance to employees, all children have to have, can keep health insurance even if they lose their job, companies can’t deny for people with pre-existing conditions & costs the same for everyone, government-run marketplace for insurance & government-run insurance option, tax the wealthy
 * Iraq/Homeland Security- close Guantanamo Bay, what to do with prisoners?, reduced American presence in Iraq, funds to stabilize Afghanistan's government & get rid of terrorists
 * Abortion- pro-choice, banned government funded abortion
 * Gay rights- no more “don’t ask, don’t tell”, military can kick out openly gay soldiers, didn’t ban gay marriage, opposed to gay marriage but wants couples to be able to have health benefits & civil unions, leaves it to the states
 * Tax issues- repeal bush tax cuts & spend money on infrastructure improvement & health care
 * Immigration- guest worker prgrm, encourage citizenship, strengthen border security, end illegal immigrant exploitation, supports comprehensive immigration, hasn’t been able to address it during his 1st 2 years
 * Gun Control- stricter gun control, ban on semi-automatic weapons, stricter accountability for gun show dealers
 * Free trade- keep NAFTA & other agreements but raise environmental & labor standards to protect jobs & workers

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!! The Obama's Christmas Card 2011- Katita Miller and Katherine Ryan

media type="youtube" key="f-VZLvVF1FQ" height="315" width="560" Obama's First Campaign Video for 2012 election. "It Begins with Us". Katita Miller and Katherine Ryan = Why Defense Cuts Could Doom Obama's Re-election Bid = Posted by Katita Miller & Katherine Ryan <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">When President Obama visits __ [|Scranton] __, Pennsylvania, this week to talk about his jobs bill, one part of the economy he probably won’t be discussing is the military-industrial complex. Defense jobs have become a tough topic for him, because at the same time he is trying to increase employment for school teachers and construction workers, he is threatening to veto legislation that would prevent hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. The cuts are required by the Budget Control Act that Obama signed in August, which stated that if a special congressional committee failed to find $1.2 trillion in budget savings, then military spending would automatically be reduced by $600 billion over the next ten years. That’s on top of $350 billion in Pentagon cuts already being implemented under the same law. Obama originally said that “sequestering” funds in this manner was a bad idea, but now he promises to block any law that averts the cuts unless it includes the required $1.2 trillion in savings — a near impossibility in the current political climate. So even as the president pushes his jobs bill, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the military-industrial complex could soon disappear as a result of his position on deficit reduction. That stance might have strong support in some parts of the Democratic Party, but in Northeast Pennsylvania where Scranton is located it’s a pretty scary proposition. The Scranton area contains several sizable defense plants making items like high-tech helmets and smart bombs, and the biggest local employer is a nearby Army depot that repairs military electronics. If Obama sticks to his guns on budget cuts, that would be real bad news for Scranton’s economy. It could end up being bad news for Obama too, come election day. Pennsylvania is a must-win state for the president’s reelection campaign, but he carried the Keystone State in 2008 with less than 55 percent of the vote, which means that if one in 20 voters there shifts from supporting Democrats to the Republicans next time around, Obama could lose all 21 of the state’s electoral college votes — and the election. Thus, if enough defense workers in places like Scranton think their jobs are more likely to be saved with Republicans in the White House, that could spell big trouble for Obama’s reelection bid. Pennsylvania is not unique. Defense spending is a big part of the economic mix in half a dozen “swing states” up for grabs in the 2012 presidential race. But while the president has begun shaping his public messaging to appeal to key Democratic constituencies like teachers and environmentalists, he seems oblivious to the fact that his budget pronouncements are scaring the living daylights out of voters whose well-being depends on military outlays. Many of those voters live in states like Colorado and Virginia that he must carry to achieve reelection. Consider the case of Florida, the state that put George W. Bush in the White House by a margin of fewer than 300 votes out of the five million plus that Floridians cast that year. When a few hundred people can decide who gets a tenth of the electoral college votes needed to become president, you know you’re in a swing state. __ [|Barack Obama] __ did a bit better than Al Gore eight years later, winning 50.9 percent of the vote in Florida to John McCain’s 48.1 percent. But back then he wasn’t overseeing unpopular foreign wars or a faltering economy; now he is, and thus will need every advantage possible to secure the Sunshine State’s 27 electoral college votes (270 is the winning number). Unfortunately for the Democrats, Florida is a huge beneficiary of military spending. From the 10,000 military and civilian workers at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida’s panhandle to the even larger workforce at the Navy’s homeport and aircraft depot around Jacksonville to the Special Operations Command near Tampa to the military plants at Orlando, Florida depends heavily on Pentagon largesse for its prosperity. The Obama Administration has already alienated NASA workers in the “space corridor” near Cape Canaveral with its ill-conceived plan for reorganizing the human spaceflight program, and now the president’s position on deficit control threatens to drive a much larger number of military personnel, contractors and dependents into the arms of the Republicans. Apparently the White House political team hasn’t figured out that if Eglin Air Force Base was in Alabama, Al Gore would have won the White House in 2000. So it has allowed the president to stumble into a political trap on defense spending that nearly assures he will lose Florida in the 2012 election. O.K., so maybe Obama doesn’t absolutely have to carry the Sunshine State to win the election. His strategists are said to be exploring alternate victory scenarios. But can he win without other swing states, like Colorado and Indiana and North Carolina and Ohio and Virginia? Not a chance! A five-percent shift in voter sentiment to the Republicans from the 2008 results would doom his electoral prospects in each of those states. When you look closely at the handful of states that have a recent pattern of swinging between parties from one election to the next, you discover that defense is a significant part of the economic mix in every one. Virginia hosts one of the largest concentrations of military bases in the world around Norfolk, and thus leads other states in per capita defense spending. Colorado has its own sprawling military complex centered on Northern Command headquarters and Fort Carson near Colorado Springs. Ohio hosts the huge headquarters of Air Force Materiel Command and the Army’s only tank plant at Lima. Even Indiana, a swing state not usually noted for its military activities, has major federal facilities and defense plants associated with the production and support of weapons. For instance, Rolls Royce builds military aircraft engines near Indianapolis, AM General assembles the Army’s Humvee combat vehicle at South Bend, and a naval depot in Crane repairs complex electronic systems. Having carried Indiana in 2008 with only 49.9 percent of the vote to John McCain’s 49.0 percent, candidate Obama can’t afford to be scaring workers at any of those sites. But he is. Obama probably feels that his commitment to veto changes in the budget law not delivering $1.2 trillion in savings is a principled response to the fiscal dilemma Republicans have handed him. However, in making that promise, he unwittingly exhibited the same blind spot that so many Democrats have when it comes to defense spending. Like Representative Barney Frank, who regularly calls for big defense cuts that would hurt thousands of workers in his home state of Massachusetts, Mr. Obama is poised to devastate a sector full of faithful Democratic supporters. There aren’t many sectors left in the U.S. economy where old-line industrial unions still have as much presence as defense. And there aren’t many institutions where retirees and dependents rely more heavily on federal funds than the armed forces. Such groups are usually considered core components of the Democratic base, but when they are associated with the military they seem to get ignored in White House political calculations. If Obama’s political team doesn’t wake up soon, these groups will be more inclined to vote Republican in 2012 — potentially denying Democrats the margin of victory needed to carry swing states essential to the president’s reelection. NOVEMBER 30, 2011, 10:17 P.M. ET =<span style="background-color: initial; font-family: Georgia,'Century Schoolbook','Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 2.8em;">Obama: 'Massive blow' if GOP blocks payroll tax = Posted by Katita Miller & Katherine Ryan

Associated Press
<span style="background-color: initial; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1.4em;">NEW YORK — Blending governing with re-election politics, President Barack Obama roused a cheering northeast Pennsylvania crowd Wednesday as he warned of a "massive blow to the economy" if Republicans block a payroll tax extension. But hours later, addressing donors in New York, he toned his rhetoric down and declared progress was possible. Obama took to the road with a dual pitch for money, campaigning for more cash in the pockets of U.S. workers — and for his campaign treasury as well. He pressed his case at a campaign-style rally in working-class Scranton, Pa., where he said Republicans had to choose between lower taxes for the wealthy, or a payroll tax cut that would help working Americans. Republicans say they would support extending the payroll tax cut, but reject new taxes to offset the costs. "Are you going to cut taxes for the middle class and those who are trying to get into the middle class, or are you going to protect massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?" he said. "Are you going to ask a few hundred thousand people who have done very, very well to do their fair share or are you going to raise taxes for hundreds of millions of people across the country?" Later, in donor-rich New York City where he was raising money for his already flush re-election bid, he took a more conciliatory tone, acknowledging that Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky were also willing to extend the payroll tax, though not with a tax increase on millionaires. "For the last couple of days Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell have both indicated that it probably does make sense not to have taxes go up for middle class families, particularly since they've all taken an oath not to raise taxes," Obama told about 50 donors at a Greenwich Village restaurant. "And so it's possible we'll see some additional progress in the next couple of weeks that can continue to help strengthen the economy." The populist pitch in Scranton and the fundraisers in New York served as political bookends for the president and illustrated the dual policy and political demands on him as the 2012 campaign season nears. He first rallied the type of working-class crowd that would benefit from the tax cuts and then appealed for campaign contributions from donors, many of whom would be the ones to shoulder the tax increases Obama supports. Obama told one group of donors that he still needs to make sure that key aspects of the health care law get implemented in 2014, that banking regulations are enacted and that energy policies are updated. "I'm going to need another term to finish the job," he said. Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, Republicans said they were prepared to extend the temporary payroll tax cut, but they opposed Democrats' plan to pay for it by taxing incomes over $1 million, setting up a showdown over how to find mutually acceptable savings of over $100 billion before any extension could become law. The GOP released a plan of their own that would raise money by freezing federal workforce salaries and providing government benefits according to income. The full payroll tax of 6.2 percent would be restored if Congress does not act by year's end, increasing taxes on 160 million Americans. Obama and the Democrats want to expand this year's 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll tax as well as extend, it while Republicans favor a straight extension. "If Congress doesn't act to extend this tax cut then most of you ... the typical middle-class family is going to see your taxes go up by $1,000 at the worst possible time," Obama said. Obama was welcomed warmly by a crowd of nearly 2,000 in the Scranton High School gym. At one point the president said that Republicans have sworn an oath not to raise taxes, prompting one man in the crowd to yell loudly: "Give us some names!" In making a case for the consequences of letting the tax cut lapse, Obama offered a bleak assessment, telling his audience: "It would be tough for you. It would also be a massive blow for the economy because we're not fully out of the recession yet." Technically, though, the recession ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the nonprofit group that determines the beginning and end of recessions. The downturn began in December 2007 and was the longest and deepest since World War II, costing the country about 7.5 million jobs. The recovery has been unusually weak, but the economy is growing again. It expanded 2 percent in the July-September quarter. In selecting Scranton to make his appeal, Obama ventured to the birthplace of Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bob Casey, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is the author of the payroll tax cut plan expected to come up for a vote in the Senate later this week. Before making remarks, Obama sought to put a face on the beneficiaries of the payroll tax cut by stopping at the home of third-grade teacher Patrick Festa and his wife Donna, a graphic designer, in working-class South Scranton. The three chatted in the family's Christmas-decorated dining room, Obama inquiring about their work and their two high school-aged children. Obama won Pennsylvania with 54 percent of the vote in 2008, but the fragile economy could put the state in play in 2012. Its proximity to Washington and its political importance have made it a favorite stopping place for Obama and Biden. The trip comes as Obama steps up his re-election campaign, rolling out two ads that call on supporters to begin to mobilize. In New York, Obama attended three fundraisers: one at the home of businessman Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress, where tickets went for at least $10,000; one at the Greenwich Village restaurant Gotham Bar and Grill at $35,800 per ticket; and a reception at the Sheraton Hotel, where tickets began at $1,000. The money will be split between the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election campaign. At Rosen's Upper East Side residence, Obama expressed support for Israel, after Rosen noted "concern" about U.S.-Israeli relations among some Jewish voters, and he spoke of progress that has been made on restoring the economy. "Bottom line is this: Over the past three years we've made progress. People aren't feeling all that progress so far because we had fallen so far. But the trajectory of the country at this point is sound," Obama said. Obama had private time and posed for pictures with groups of Latino supporters and gay and lesbian backers before he addressed the Sheraton fundraiser, the last of the night. "Every single thing that we care about is at stake in the next election," he told that crowd. "The very core of what this country stands for is on the line." —Copyright 2011 Associated Press <span style="background-color: initial; color: #000000; display: block; font-size: 1em; text-align: center;"> Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our [|Subscriber Agreement] and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit [|www.djreprints.com]


 * [[image:http://images.clickability.com/partners/411179/mainLogo.gif caption="Voice of America" link="@http://www1.voanews.com/"]] ||  ||
 * [[image:http://images.clickability.com/partners/411179/mainLogo.gif caption="Voice of America" link="@http://www1.voanews.com/"]] ||  ||

Posted by Katita Miller & Katherine Ryan
 * || November 18, 2011
 * || November 18, 2011

Obama Meets with Asian Leaders
Dan Robinson | Dan Robinson Photo: AP President Barack Obama with China's Premier Wen Jiabao, center, at the East Asia Summit Gala dinner in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, Nov. 18, 2011.

U.S. President Barack Obama has held talks with Asian leaders attending the East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia.

Obama's purpose on this Asia-Pacific trip has been to signal that the U.S. is "here to stay" as a Pacific power, intent on strengthening its political, economic and strategic engagement with the region.

But the U.S. is also encouraging the steadily increasing economic and security stake that India, the world's largest democracy, has in the Pacific. Thus the first bilateral meeting on Obama's schedule was with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Obama said both nations see the East Asia Summit as "the premier arena" to work together on issues ranging from maritime security and nonproliferation to expanded cooperation on disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.

Prime Minister Singh gave a diplomatically upbeat assessment of relations. He also said India’s parliament will soon consider liability laws to address the concerns of America nuclear power companies, which have held up the implementation of the two countries’ civilian nuclear deal.

“Therefore we have gone some ways to respond to the concerns of the American companies," said Singh. "And within the four concerns of the law of the land, we are willing to address any specific grievance."

Obama also met with the leaders of the Philippines and Malaysia, and later with host nation Indonesia, before joining the U.S.-ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) meeting and an East Asia Summit dinner.


 * Major announcements**

Before any of the day's carefully-staged diplomatic events, President Obama was able to point to a major $22 billion deal involving the sale of more than 200 Boeing Company passenger jets to Indonesia's largest domestic carrier Lion Air. The deal would support some 110,000 jobs in the United States.

But the big story Friday was the president's announcement of a major new diplomatic outreach to Burma, dominated for decades by the military but moving in recent months toward political reform.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Burma next month to "explore" possibilities for improving relations. With Clinton by his side, he called it an opportunity for Burma's government to demonstrate it is serious about reform.

"We remain concerned about Burma's closed political system, its treatment of minorities, and holding of political prisoners and its relationship with North Korea," said Obama. "But we want to seize what could be a historic opportunity for progress and make it clear that if Burma continues to travel down the road of democratic reform it can forge a new relationship with the United States of America."

Obama said he would deliver the same messages to Burma's President Thein Sein during Friday's U.S-ASEAN meeting. ASEAN leaders have approved Burma to head the 10-member organization in 2014.

Senior White House officials said Secretary Clinton is scheduled to arrive in Burma on December 1 and spend two days meeting with government and civil society leaders, and with Aung San Suu Kyi.

The president said he had his first conversation with Burmese opposition leader and 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, while he was flying to Bali from Australia, saying they reviewed progress in Burma.

Obama said Burma's government has taken positive steps to open the political process, loosen media restrictions and release some political prisoners. He said Aung San Suu Kyi supported U.S. engagement aimed at moving the reform process forward.

President Obama came to Bali after a visit to Australia during which the countries announced a major enhancement of their 60 year security alliance and a plan to substantially increase U.S. military access to Australian bases.

That agreement, which brought a cool reaction from China, along with regional concerns about China's security assertiveness and tensions over rival claims to the South China Sea, form the backdrop for this East Asia Summit. ||  ||   || http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Obama-Meets-with-Asian-Leaders-134111903.html || = What Threatens Obama’s Re-Election Campaign = Posted by Katherine Ryan & Katita Miller
 * <span class="fonttitle" style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10px;">Find this article at:

“Uncontrollables, boomerangs and scandals” will make it difficult for the president to return to the Oval Office for a second round. By <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Colleen O'Connor] November 10, 2011 President Barack Obama faces a tough road for re-election.

He is upside-down in job-approval numbers with only a 43 percent approval, according to a <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Gallup] poll.

And his right-track, wrong-track numbers are even worse: 74 percent believe the county is on the wrong track versus 22 percent on the right track, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|PollingReport.com].

Even Nate Silver of the //<span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|New York Times Magazine] // is asking, “Is Obama toast?”

In order to deflect the blame, Obama has opened his campaign against a “do-nothing Congress.” The Republicans are countering about a “know-nothing president.” Neither label is new in American politics. And neither label is particularly helpful.

Herein lies the problem. Neither party has satisfactory answers for America’s stubborn problems, thus the dominance of “put-down” politics.

“Hope and change” has now morphed into “down and dirty.”

Here are the “down and dirty” problems that threaten Obama’s re-election.

These are the “uncontrollables, the boomerangs, and the scandals.”

Jobs growth is No. 1. If the country remains above 9 percent unemployment, Obama’s odds are less than 50-50. Little the president can do here.

The truth is, the jobs are not coming back. Manufacturing is going to the lowest bidder (Read: China, Vietnam, etc.). Even professional jobs are now being replaced by robots, information technology, and artificial intelligence (Read: Apple’s Siri voice recognition technology, foreign language translation apps, robo docs, etc.). Just read this report from //<span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|The Economist] //.

Such a truth hurts. So, the president is still pushing a jobs bill that can’t pass the House, will only create 2 million jobs for the 14 million out of work and the other 10 million working part time who want full-time work. Where is the vision?

Second is a more threatening issue—and almost totally out of his control: the European debt crisis.

Occupy Wall Street pales by comparison to the threat of the Greek government/people leaving the European Union and refusing to honor their debts. As the <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Associated Press] reports, the Greek government is still trying to form a coalition government and avoid bankruptcy.

<span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|CNN] reports that the prime minister is due to resign as soon as a coalition government is formed.

A Greek exit from the eurozone, and the resultant bankruptcy would cause a worldwide financial earthquake.

Such a default, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|projectsyndicate.org], is a very real possibility.

The Greeks are tired of austerity, budget cuts, job losses, pension cuts and dictates by the richer Europeans. Their woes foreshadow America’s. The Germans are to Greek what the Chinese are to America—huge creditor nations.

Greece almost scheduled a national referendum to simply vote away their debts. However, that much democracy threatened the financial globalists and the idea was quickly withdrawn.

Should Europe start dissembling, the resultant chaos—something no one can control—would reveal the American president as a bystander, i.e., a weakened leader. Expect a Republican commercial making the election a referendum on Obama’s inexperience.

Some analysts are actually arguing for the collapse of the global financial system as a positive development—essentially because they believe that the global system is corrupt and cannot be salvaged, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|The Business Insider]. Capitalism that is based on money leveraged so high and traded so fast that no one can catch it defeats any regulatory constraints.

The only solution, as Charles Hughes Smith argues, is localism, not globalism. A trend in farming, but not yet in banking—despite Occupy Wall Street’s “bank transfer day.”

So desperate are the Europeans that Reuters reports the finance ministers are actually asking the rich Germans to pledge their gold holdings to rescue Greece and possibly Portugal and Ireland—and maybe even Italy.

Understandably, the Bundesbank has flatly rejected the idea.

Still the eurozone finance ministers want to keep discussing the possibility, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Reuters]. They have run out of ideas about how to save Greece.

So, it seems, have the Americans.

//<span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|New York Times] // reporter Gretchen Morgenson finds the European mess proves the U.S. still hasn’t fixed the risks to its financial system—and Obama has been in charge for three years now.

As she quotes one financial expert: “At this late date we still don’t know the risks that are out there. This market is opaque, and the regulators don’t know what they’re doing.”

Enter the Occupy Wall Street boomerang.

Obama originally embraced Occupy Wall Street. So did most of those polled. However, this has boomeranged on the president. With the backlash from small businesses, the video of some violence, encampments that are less than exemplary, and the shutdowns of the Port of Oakland and some bank storefronts, the public has altered its opinion of the protests.

Should a U.S. bank buckle—such as the targeted Bank of America—Republicans will surely shift the blame to the protesters and the president. A classic boomerang.

Which brings me to the fourth threat to the president’s re-election—brewing scandals, i.e., Solyndra and MF Global.

Obama’s presidency has been remarkably scandal-free—until recently.

<span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|MF Global], the brokerage firm run by former Democratic Governor of New Jersey and Obama fundraising bundler ($500,000) Jon S. Corzine, was recently felled by fast money, high-stakes leverage and bad derivative bets against several near bankrupt European countries.

That is, Corzine bet massive amounts of nonexistent funds against the likes of Greece. When investors began demanding their investment monies be returned, many received checks by snail mail instead of wire transfers. These “slo-mo" checks bounced; $600 million remains unaccounted for, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Reuters].

Corzine has hired a criminal attorney.

Solyndra is the green firm that received over half a billion dollars in a government loan and recently went bankrupt. The Republican-controlled House committee has issued subpoenas for White House documents concerning Solyndra, but the <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|White House has denied the request].

And finally, Obama’s Global Corporate sponsors.

Then there are dozens of corporations that paid no income taxes for the last three years—coincidental with the Obama presidency, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|The Business Insider].

Granted this has been going on far longer than the Obama presidency, but it carries a whiff of hypocrisy to have the CEO of General Electric named as the president’s jobs czar, while that company earned over $10 billion in profit between 2018 and 2010 and reported -$4,737,000,000 in taxes for a tax rate of -45.3 percent. YES, MINUS 45.3 percent, according to <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|this report]. Some companies generate so many excess tax breaks that they report negative taxes.

Ironically, Occupy Wall Streeters turned up on Jeffrey Immelt’s Connecticut front lawn to protest GE’s accounting tax dodge.

Evidently, the protesters didn’t recognize the ties that bind Obama to GE.

Immelt is not just the president’s jobs czar, but his GE is also the <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|parent company] of MSNBC, CNBC and CNBC. The political commentaries of Chris Matthews, Chris O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Ed Beck, etc. are as pro-Obama as Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc., are pro-Republican.

In addition, GE <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|contributed over $1 million] to the Democrats in 2010 and reportedly <span style="color: #0044aa; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|received 14 stimulus grants worth over $25 million].

Another potential whiff of hypocrisy. Corporate America contributes to whomsoever advances their agenda.

Could be another potential boomerang, scandal, and threat to the president’s re-election bid, if he keeps pointing fingers at the rich—many of whom are his friends, allies and benefactors. = President Obama’s State of the Union Address = In his election-year State of the Union address, President Obama set forth a long list of domestic economic proposals, many of which centered on jobs and changing the tax code. Watch his speech and follow along with fact checks and analysis from Times reporters. <span class="noWrap refer" style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;"> [|Related Article »]

<span style="color: #666666; display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> Scroll transcript as video plays
 * [|00:00 Opening Remarks]
 * [|02:39 "The America Within Our Reach"]
 * [|03:37 Economic Challenge and Recovery]
 * [|08:59 American Manufacturing]
 * [|11:48 Corporate Tax Reform]
 * [|14:10 Fairness in Foreign Trade]
 * [|16:30 Training Skilled Workers]
 * [|18:56 Education]
 * [|21:39 Affordable Higher Education]
 * [|25:19 Supporting Innovation]
 * [|27:17 Oil and Natural Gas]
 * [|29:53 Clean Energy]
 * [|33:54 Infrastructure Projects]
 * [|35:22 Housing Market and Mortgages]
 * [|37:22 Corporate and Financial Regulation]
 * [|42:13 Taxes and "The Buffett Rule"]
 * [|47:33 Money in Politics]
 * [|49:32 Bipartisanship]
 * [|53:11 The Middle East]
 * [|55:45 Iran]
 * [|56:48 Global Influence]
 * [|58:55 Military Spending]

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-decoration: none;">[|01:14 Closing Remarks; Appeal to Unity] ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Opening Remarks == === Full Coverage of President Obama's State of the Union Address === Follow the transcript of Mr. Obama's speech with fact checks and analysis by Times reporters. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans: <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. (Applause.) === Fact Check: Bin Laden Not a Threat === President Obama can claim a record of aggressive pursuit of Al Qaeda and its affiliates abroad over the past year, including the killing of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's founder, in May; Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born propagandist and plotter for the terrorist network's branch in Yemen, in September; and scores of suspected militants in Pakistan. Before the mission to kill Bin Laden, Mr. Obama made a high-risk decision to send a Navy Seal team deep into Pakistani territory without alerting Pakistani officials, a bold move that later drew praise even from some Republicans. Mr. Obama has also expanded the use of drone strikes beyond Pakistan to Yemen and Somalia and made them a routine tool of counterterrorism. The relentless strikes in Pakistan's tribal area have, by most accounts, hugely weakened Al Qaeda, but have also fueled public anger against the United States in Pakistan and provoked critics who question whether government officials should be able to kill purported enemies, including American citizens, without trial or judicial review. //— Ashley Parker, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. (Applause.) === Fact Check: The Taliban’s Momentum Has Been Broken === Although the Taliban have been pushed back from their strongholds in southern Afghanistan and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said this month that the level of violence in the country is down for the first time in five years, American intelligence agencies have a bleaker view than the more positive statements from the Pentagon. In a classified assessment delivered to the White House last month, the Central Intelligence Agency and 15 other American intelligence agencies concluded that the war was at a stalemate and that military progress had been undermined by Afghan corruption, a weak central government and fighters infiltrating across the border from Pakistan. //— Elisabeth Bumiller, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">"The America Within Our Reach" == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Economic Challenge and Recovery == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth. The two of them shared the optimism of a nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them. Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -– an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values. ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">American Manufacturing == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Now, this blueprint begins with American manufacturing. === Fact Check: G.M., the World’s Largest Automaker === On Jan. 19, The Times reported that after three years of settling for second place, General Motors reclaimed its title as the world's largest automaker in 2011, a year when its sales grew in every region of the globe while Toyota's sales were hampered by major natural disasters. The industry's sales crown means little beyond bragging rights. But G.M.'s ability to climb back on top, only two years removed from its government rescue and bankruptcy, is certain to bolster morale within the company and strengthen the Obama administration's argument that its bailout of the industry was worthwhile. G.M. was the world's largest automaker for more than 70 years before Toyota surpassed it in 2008. //— Nick Bunkley, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring every job back that’s left our shore. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Corporate Tax Reform == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let’s change it. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Fairness in Foreign Trade == === Fact Check: Doubling American Exports === The Obama administration is indeed [|on track to meet its goal of doubling exports by 2015]. Exports have reached about $180 billion a month, according to Commerce Department data, up from $140 billion a month two years ago. They are currently growing at an annual pace of about 16 percent — a percentage point higher than necessary to double exports to $3.1 trillion. And growing exports have accounted for about half the nation's economic growth since the recession ended. //— Annie Lowrey, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we’re on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration –- and it’s made a difference. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing financing or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you -– America will always win. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Training Skilled Workers == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that –- openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work. It’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, and Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers -– places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need. It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Education == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier. For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning -- the first time that’s happened in a generation. But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies -- just to make a difference. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn. That’s a bargain worth making. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Affordable Higher Education == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves millions of middle-class families thousands of dollars, and give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools redesign courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Higher education can’t be a luxury -– it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: the fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That doesn’t make sense. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Supporting Innovation == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work, and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs. After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries. ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Oil and Natural Gas == === Fact Check: Where the Energy Is === An administration official declined to explain exactly what this potentially huge expansion of offshore activity meant, except to say that the Interior Department would be announcing new lease sales in the coming weeks. Those sales will not include areas the administration has already ruled off-limits, including most areas off Florida and along the Atlantic Coast, the official said, so it is not clear how the president reaches his target. //— John M. Broder, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Right now -- right now -- American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right -- eight years. Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs. We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk. The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock –- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Clean Energy == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Now, what’s true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.” <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well, tonight, I will. I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -– with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s a proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Infrastructure Projects == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Housing Market and Mortgages == === Fact Check: Helping Homeowners === This proposed program will target people whose mortgage debts exceed the value of their homes, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details have not yet been finalized. The official estimated that two million to three million homeowners could benefit, and that the program could cost $10 billion. The proposal would join an existing program that offers refinancing to borrowers whose loans are held by the government-owned mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This new program would target borrowers whose loans are held by other companies. It is the latest in a long series of largely unsuccessful efforts by the administration to improve the housing market. Like most of its predecessors, it is not focused on borrowers who are facing foreclosure, but on those who have been able to keep making the payments on their homes. //— Binyamin Appelbaum, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones who were hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief. And that’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody. We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Corporate and Financial Regulation == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Rules to prevent financial fraud or toxic dumping or faulty medical devices -- these don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better. There’s no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill -- because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk. (Laughter and applause.) Now, I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Absolutely. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, or start a business, or send their kids to college. So if you are a big bank or financial institution, you’re no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail –- because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices -- those days are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them. (Applause.) === Fact Check: Cracking Down on Financial Crime === A [|New York Times analysis] of enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission over the last 15 years found at least 51 instances where large financial companies were charged with violating an anti-fraud law that the company had vowed in a prior settlement never to violate. Mr. Obama said measures are needed to make sure that Wall Street firms do not see those settlements as little more than the cost of doing business. That statement echoed an opinion issued in November by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, a federal district judge in Manhattan, who [|rejected a proposed $285 million settlement] in a case between the S.E.C. and Citigroup on fraud charges related to the mortgage crisis. Judge Rakoff said the S.E.C.'s policy of allowing companies to "neither admit nor deny" the S.E.C.'s charges gave him no way to judge what had really happened, and therefore whether the proposed punishment was fair and adequate. //— Edward Wyatt, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We’ll also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans. ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Taxes and "The Buffett Rule" == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future. Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. (Applause.) === Fact Check: The Payroll Tax Cut === In 2011, Congress unexpectedly slashed the payroll tax — a levy on wages that helps to fund Social Security — to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent of a worker's paycheck. That saved the average American household $934 in 2011, the Tax Policy Center calculated. It is impossible to gauge the exact effect of the tax cut on the larger economy, but most analysts credit it with lifting consumer spending and helping households cope with the sluggish economy and high gas prices last year. The Obama administration proposed not only keeping the temporary tax cut for 2012, but expanding it, arguing that the economy is still too weak for middle-class Americans to be paying higher taxes. Economists argue that dollar for dollar, the payroll tax cut does not jolt growth as well as those extra weeks of jobless benefits. Many forecasters say that letting the payroll tax cut expire would have only a slight negative impact on overall growth — perhaps not a risk taking, but nothing that would put the economy back on the brink of recession, all things equal. //— Annie Lowrey, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay. Let’s get it done. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else –- like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors. But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief. Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get a tax break I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference -- like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know that’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Money in Politics == === Fact Check: Insider Trading by Congress === The Times reported last month : Perhaps the most tantalizing but hotly debated factor in the rising wealth of Congress is lawmakers' performance in the stock markets — and the question of whether they are using their access to confidential information to enrich themselves. In a study completed this year, Alan Ziobrowski at Georgia State and his colleagues found that House members saw the stocks they owned outperform the market by 6 percent a year. Their research from several years ago found that senators did even better, at 12 percent above average. The researchers attributed the performance to a "significant information advantage" that lawmakers hold by virtue of their positions and the fact that they are not bound by insider-trading laws. However, a separate study last year by researchers at Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the portfolios of lawmakers actually performed somewhat worse than those of average investors. It found that members did do better when investing in companies in their home districts or associated with campaign donors — suggesting that they benefited from their political connections — but still not as well as the average investor. //— Eric Lichtblau, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Now, I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt, energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right about now: Nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical? <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco? I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad -- and it seems to get worse every year. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa -- an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington. ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Bipartisanship == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything -– even routine business –- passed through the Senate. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Finally, none of this can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas. I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there’s nothing the United States of America can’t achieve. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">The Middle East == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That’s the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years. Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America. (Applause.) === Fact Check: Ending the Iraq War === Mr. Obama did not mention that since the withdrawal of American troops, violence and political instability have swept Iraq. Some experts argue that the absence of an American military presence has diminished the administration's ability to influence the government of Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki. Iran's government has emerged as a counterweight to the United States in Iraq, though the extent of its influence can be exaggerated. //— Steven Lee Myers, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qaddafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators -– a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed, and that human dignity cannot be denied. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it’s ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings –- men and women; Christians, Muslims and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty. And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Iran == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations. ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Global Influence == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our ironclad commitment -- and I mean ironclad -- to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing. No, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs –- and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Military Spending == === Fact Check: Paying for the Military === Mr. Obama's assertion that he has a defense strategy that ensures that the United States maintains the finest military in the world is hard to quibble with, since even with coming defense cuts America will still spend $500 billion each year on its military, which is almost as much as all other military budgets in the world combined. Although the Republican presidential candidates have charged that Mr. Obama is gutting defense, in reality it was both Republicans and Democrats in Congress who agreed with Mr. Obama last summer to cut $450 billion in Pentagon spending over the next decade, or about 8 percent of the base Pentagon budget. There is a potential for an additional $500 billion in Pentagon budget cuts over a decade if Congress follows through on deeper reductions, but Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, has characterized them as ruinous. //— Elisabeth Bumiller, reporter// <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">That’s why, working with our military leaders, I’ve proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">As they come home, we must serve them as well as they’ve served us. That includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned –- which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our nation. With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we’re providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her. (Applause.) ==<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'times new roman',serif; font-size: 18px;">Closing Remarks; Appeal to Unity == <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job -- the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other -- because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s somebody behind you, watching your back. <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) <span style="color: #333333; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 13px;">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-video-transcript.html
 * [[image:http://s.wsj.net/img/wsj_print.gif caption="Need a Real Sponsor here"]]

=<span style="background-color: initial; font-family: Georgia,'Century Schoolbook','Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 2.8em;">New Obama Housing Plan Not Winning Republican Fans = <span style="background-color: initial; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em;"> There was a lot of criticism on Capitol Hill Wednesday of President Barack Obama’s __ latest housing proposals __, an indication that the effort faces steep odds of being enacted. Republicans were quick in their denunciations. “This is not a serious plan to help the nation’s housing market,” Rep. Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a statement. “This is just more of the same from an administration that offers expensive program after expensive program, none of which have worked to help struggling homeowners.” House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters that “none of these programs have worked… I don’t know why anyone would think that this next idea is going to work.” Obama administration officials are proposing to expand the authority of the Federal Housing Administration, a government-run mortgage insurer, so it can refinance loans for up to 3.5 million new borrowers. That’s on top of 11 million borrowers who could benefit from the existing program for borrowers with loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled mortgage finance companies. The administration’s plan would require Congress to allow the FHA to insure loans for borrowers who owe more on their loans than their properties are worth—something that the agency is not currently allowed to do. That idea didn’t sit well with Republican lawmakers, who pointed out that the FHA is __ financially troubled __ and could be on the verge of a bailout. With the FHA on “a collision course with bankruptcy, it is unconscionable for the president to even consider a proposal that would make a disastrous situation worse,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) a top Republican on the financial services panel. However, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the FHA would be protected in several ways, most notably by imposing a fee on banks to help cover the program’s $5 billion to $10 billion cost. Mr. Donovan predicted that the bill would garner bipartisan support in Congress because the program is targeted at people who have been keeping up with their mortgage payments, not delinquent homeowners. “I think you will see broad support across the political spectrum to do this,” he told reporters at a White House briefing. Mr. Donovan also said that the FHA’s main insurance fund would be walled off and wouldn’t be threatened by the new refinancing program, which would be paid for by a tax on banks. However, Mr. Donovan said “we are open to having a discussion with Congress” about finding a different way to pay for the program, but added it must include a commitment of some form from banks. Frank Keating, chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said the bank tax would reduce banks’ ability to lend. Mr. Keating cautioned that “uncoordinated and ever-changing government programs, including those detailed today, create uncertainty in the market, increase the cost of home ownership, and reduce credit availability needed to support home ownership and the economic recovery.” The new housing proposals may allow Obama and other Democrats to establish contrasts with Republicans in the run up to November’s elections. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), applauded the move, saying that that Obama “understands clearly that for the economy to recover fully, the housing crisis must be resolved.” Starting shortly after taking office in 2009, Obama announced a series of programs that were designed to help the troubled housing market turn around, an effort __ initially estimated __ to cost $75 billion. However, only about $3 billion has been spent on the administration’s housing programs as of the end of last year. That total is projected to grow to about $8.6 billion by 2017, based on the number of borrowers who are currently enrolled, according to the Treasury Department. However, recent __ changes to the housing programs __ could mean more borrowers will sign up, and therefore more money will be spent. <span style="color: #010101; display: block; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">By **Eric Marrapodi** and **Brianna Keilar,** CNN Some rank and file Catholics are beginning to express the same <span style="color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">frustrations as clergy about a new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy requiring all employers, including religious ones, to pay for FDA-approved contraceptives, such as the birth control pill and Plan B, through health insurance plans. Churches are exempt but hospitals and schools with religious affiliations must comply. The new policy goes into effect August 1, 2012, but religious groups who oppose contraception have been given a yearlong extension to enforce the policy. "What's offensive is that we're being told, our Catholic institutions which serve this nation well, are being told you who find these things offensive, you should pay for them, in fact you must pay for them," Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, told CNN. Catholic teaching opposes the use of contraceptives. Wuerl acknowledged the clergy and the faithful have been at odds over the teachings on contraceptive use. But on this policy he said both are in lockstep over what is being perceived as a violation of religious liberties. "This time around what people are seeing this isn't a question of one moral teaching or another, it's being able to teach at all. Our freedom, and everyone has a stake in freedom in this country, and I think that's why this resonates across the board," he said. <span style="color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">CNN's Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day's top stories <span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">Wuerl is calling his congregants to action, asking them to call congress and the White House to express their displeasure. "We're beginning to say to our people this is what the issue is, it's wrong, we've never experienced this in the history of our country before, this is a violation of the basic rights of conscience and religious liberty. So you need to know that and you need to speak up," he said. The timing of the administration's announcement has drawn criticism for being tone deaf, coming just three days before tens of thousands of protesters, many of them Catholics who oppose abortion rights, came to Washington for the annual March for Life on the anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. "In my estimation it's a huge misstep politically," said Stephen Schneck a political scientist from Catholic University who has consulted with the administration on Catholic issues. In 2009, Schneck also worked with pro-abortion rights Democrats in Congress on the president’s signature health care reform measure to find language that ensured government funds did not pay for abortions. "The way in which the narrative is being developed is that the administration is at odds with the Catholic Church fundamentally. What I'm seeing in the pews is something of a waking up, a Catholic solidarity. That I think could very well carry over into their political activities" Schneck said. "There's nothing like having a sense of opposition to you to rally the troops and I suspect that's going to happen here." Schneck pointed particularly to states with large Catholic populations where this new solidarity could have a far-reaching political impact. "If you look at where those Catholics are, they're in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Florida, which are of course critical states for anyone who wants to become president of the United States," he said. In 2008, President Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote, according to the Pew Research Center. Early on in his presidency, Obama reached out to Catholics. He appointed prominent Catholics to several cabinet positions and ambassadorships. In May 2009, the president delivered the commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame, where he spoke of working together on abortion. "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women. Those are things we can do," the president said to rousing applause from the crowd in South Bend, Indiana. In shaping the new Health and Human Services policy, the administration reached out to New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the public policy arm of the church in the United States, and other Catholic leaders in November to seek their input in the process. Many of the same Catholic leaders received a heads up on January 20 several hours before the administration announced the policy. "This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in the statement about the policy. On Tuesday in the White House briefing room, Press Secretary Jay Carney again defended the administration's decision when pressed by reporters. "After very careful consideration the administration believes that this strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concern," Carney said. The administration is extremely concerned this will affect Catholic voters’ support. As the opposition grew this week, the administration noted to reporters there were Catholics in and out of government who support the measure, as well as interfaith groups. Late Wednesday night the White House <span style="color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">launched the first part of an information campaign to spell out what the policy change does and does not do. An administration official also pointed to nearly $2 billion in federal grants that have gone to Catholic-related charities since the beginning of the administration as a sign of the willingness to work together. James Salt, executive director of Catholics United, which hasn't taken a position on the HHS policy, said there could be a silver lining for both Catholics and the administration on this issue. He said with more women able to access contraceptives there could be a reduction in abortions stemming from unplanned pregnancies as a result of the policy. "More needs to be done on both sides. It's not just a question for the administration, it's a question for the pro-life community and the pro-choice community to put aside their heated rhetoric and find common ground," Salt said.
 * <span style="color: #666666; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1em;">FEBRUARY 1, 2012, 4:06 PM ET
 * <  ||<   ||<   ||<   ||<   ||< <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: inline !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: baseline;">=<span style="color: #004276; display: inline !important; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 20px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Is Obama losing the Catholic vote?] = ||
 * (CNN)–**After years of bridge building with the Catholic Church, the Obama administration may have damaged some of the good will it built up with the nation's 70 million Catholics, which could have steep consequences at the polls in November.

media type="custom" key="12331782"

Tamara Mejia & Bailey Springer

<span class="dot" style="background-color: transparent; color: #343b40; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 28px;">Barack Obama Biography

** Synopsis **
he 44th and current president of the United States, Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was a civil rights lawyer before pursuing a political career, first as Illinois State Senator, and later as the first African-American president of the United States. President Obama continues to enact policy changes in response to the issues of health care and economic crisis.

Early Life
President of the United States. Born Barack Hussein Obama on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama's mother, [|Ann Dunham], grew up in Wichita, Kansas, where her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dunham's father, Stanley, enlisted in the service and marched across Europe in Patton's army. Dunham's mother, Madelyn, went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, the couple studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program and, after several moves, landed in Hawaii. Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., was born of Luo ethnicity in Nyanza Province, Kenya. The elder Obama grew up herding goats in Africa, eventually earning a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya and pursue his dreams of college in Hawaii. While studying at the University of Hawaii in Manoa, Obama, Sr. met fellow student, [|Ann Dunham]. They married on February 2, 1961. Barack was born six months later. Obama's parents separated when he was two years old, later divorcing. Obama, Sr. went on to Harvard to pursue Ph.D. studies, and then returned to Kenya in 1965. In 1966, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, another East–West Center student from Indonesia. A year later, the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama's half-sister Maya Soetoro Ng was born. Several incidents in Indonesia left Dunham afraid for her son's safety and education so, at the age of 10, Barack was sent back to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents. His mother and sister later joined them.

Excelling in School
While living with his grandparents, Obama enrolled in the esteemed Punahou Academy, excelling in basketball and graduating with academic honors in 1979. As one of only three black students at the school, Obama became conscious of racism and what it meant to be African-American. He later described how he struggled to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage with his own sense of self. "I began to notice there was nobody like me in the Sears, Roebuck Christmas catalog...and that Santa was a white man," he said. "I went to the bathroom and stood in front of the mirror with all my senses and limbs seemingly intact, looking the way I had always looked, and wondered if something was wrong with me." Obama also struggled with the absence of his father, who he saw only once more after his parents divorced, in a brief 1971 visit. "[My father] had left paradise, and nothing that my mother or grandparents told me could obviate that single, unassailable fact," he later reflected. "They couldn't describe what it might have been like had he stayed." Obama, Sr. eventually lost his legs in an automobile accident, also losing his job as a result. In 1982, he died in yet another car accident while traveling in Nairobi. Obama, Jr. was 22 years old when he received the news of his father's passing. "At the time of his death, my father remained a myth to me," Obama said, "both more and less than a man." After high school, Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science. After working in the business sector for two years, Obama moved to Chicago in 1985. There, he worked on the South Side as a community organizer for low-income residents in the Roseland and the Altgeld Gardens communities.

Law Career
It was during this time that Obama, who said he "was not raised in a religious household," joined the Trinity United Church of Christ. He also visited relatives in Kenya, which included an emotional visit to the graves of his biological father and paternal grandfather. "For a long time I sat between the two graves and wept," Obama said. "I saw that my life in America—the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago—all of it was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away." Obama returned from Kenya with a sense of renewal, entering Harvard Law School in 1988. The next year, he met [|Michelle Robinson], an associate at Sidley & Austin law firm in Chicago. She was assigned to be Obama's adviser during a summer internship at the firm, and soon the couple began dating. In February 1990, Obama was elected the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and he graduated magna cum laude in 1991. After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, and helped organize voter registration drives during [|Bill Clinton] 's 1992 presidential campaign. On October 3, 1992, he and Michelle were married. They moved to Kenwood, on Chicago's South Side, and welcomed two daughters: Malia (born 1998) and Sasha (born 2001).

Entry into Illinois Politics
Obama published his autobiography in 1995 //Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance//. The work received high praise from literary figures such as Toni Morrison and has since been printed in 10 languages, including Chinese, Swedish and Hebrew. The book had a second printing in 2004, and is currently being adapted into a children's version. The 2006 audiobook version of //Dreams//, which was narrated by Obama, received a Grammy award for Best Spoken Word Album. Obama's advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate as a Democrat. He won election in 1996. During these years, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting legislation on ethics, expanded health care services, and early childhood education programs for the poor. He also created a state earned-income tax credit for the working poor. Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee as well, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, he worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U. S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Undeterred, Obama created a campaign committee in 2002, and began raising funds to run in the 2004 U.S. Senate Race. With the help of political consultant [|David Axelrod], Obama began assessing his prospects of a Senate win. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Obama was an early opponent of President [|George W. Bush] 's push to war with Iraq. Obama was still a state senator when he spoke against a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq during a rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza in October 2002. "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars," he said. "What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and [|Paul Wolfowitz] and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." Despite his protests, the war with Iraq began in 2003.

U.S. Senate Career
Obama, encouraged by poll numbers, decided to run for the U.S. Senate open seat vacated by Republican Peter Fitzgerald. In the 2004 Democratic primary, he won 52 percent of the vote, defeating multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes. That summer, he was invited to deliver the keynote speech in support of [|John Kerry] at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Obama emphasized the importance of unity, and made veiled jabs at the Bush administration and the diversionary use of wedge issues. After the convention, Obama returned to his U.S. Senate bid in Illinois. His opponent in the general election was supposed to be Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, a wealthy former investment banker. However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of unsubstantiated sexual deviancy allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan. In August 2004, diplomat and former presidential candidate [|Alan Keyes] accepted the Republican nomination to replace Ryan. In three televised debates, Obama and [|Keyes] expressed opposing views on stem cell research, abortion, gun control, school vouchers and tax cuts. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70 percent of the vote to Keyes' 27 percent, the largest electoral victory in Illinois history. With his win, Barack Obama became only the third African-American elected to the U.S. Senate since the Reconstruction. Sworn into office January 4, 2005, Obama partnered with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Eastern Europe and Russia. Then, with Republican Senator Tom Corburn of Oklahoma, he created a website that tracks all federal spending. Obama also spoke out for victims of Hurricane Katrina; pushed for alternative energy development; and championed improved veterans' benefits. His second book, //The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream//, was published in October 2006. The work discussed Obama's visions for the future of America, many of which became talking points for his eventual presidential campaign. Shortly after its release, it hit No. 1 on both the //New York Times// and Amazon.com bestsellers lists.

2008 Presidential Election
In February 2007, Obama made headlines when he announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He was locked in a tight battle with former first lady and then-U.S. Senator from New York, [|Hillary Rodham Clinton]. On June 3, 2008, however, Obama became the presumptive nominee for the Democratic party, and Senator Clinton delivered her full support to Obama for the duration of his campaign. On November 4th, 2008, Barack Obama defeated Republican presidential nominee [|John McCain] for the position of U.S. President, 52.9 percent to 45.7 percent. On January 20, 2009, Obama became the 44th president of the United States—and the first African-American to hold this office. When Obama took office, he inherited a global economic recession; two on-going foreign wars; and the lowest international favorability rating for the United States ever. He campaigned on an ambitious agenda of financial reform, alternative energy, and reinventing education and health care—all while bringing down the national debt. Because these issues were intertwined with the economic well-being of the nation, he believed all would have to be undertaken simultaneously. During his inauguration speech, Obama summarized the situation by saying, "Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met."

First 100 Days
Between Inauguration Day and April 29, the Obama administration took to the field on many fronts. Obama coaxed Congress to expand health care insurance for children and provide legal protection for women seeking equal pay. A $787 billion stimulus bill was passed to promote short-term economic growth. Housing and credit markets were put on life-support, with a market-based plan to buy U.S. banks' toxic assets. Loans were made to the auto industry, and new regulations were proposed for Wall Street. He also cut taxes for working families, small businesses and first-time home buyers. The president also loosened the ban on embryonic stem cell research and moved ahead with a $3.5 trillion budget plan. During his first 100 days, President Obama also undertook a complete overhaul of America's foreign policy. He reached out to improve relations with Europe, China, Russia and open dialogue with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. He lobbied allies to support a global economic stimulus package. He committed an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan and set an August 2010 date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In more dramatic incidents, he took on pirates off the coast of Somalia and prepared the nation for an attack of the Swine Flu. For his efforts, he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

2010 State of the Union
On January 27, 2010, President Obama delivered his first State of the Union speech. During his oration, Obama addressed the challenges of the economy, proposing a fee for larger banks, announcing a possible freeze on government spending in 2010, and speaking against the Supreme Court's reversal of a law capping campaign finance spending. He also challenged politicians to stop thinking of re-election and start making positive changes, critisizing Republicans for their refusal to support any legislation, and chastizing Democrats for not pushing hard enough to get legislation passed. He also insisted that, despite current obstacles, he was determined to help American citizens through the nation's current domestic difficulties. "We don't quit. I don't quit," he said. "Let's sieze this moment to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and strengthen our union once more."



= QUOTES -Tamara Mejia & Bailey Springer=

'It's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential." "What Washington needs is adult supervision."  "If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress."  "My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington."  "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." "Hope – Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation." "If we aren't willing to pay a price for our values, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all."  "Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can." "And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear …we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words -- yes, we can."

media type="custom" key="11609688"

= **//2008 Victory Speech//** = media type="youtube" key="jJfGx4G8tjo" height="315" width="420"

campaign poster

Obama family picture

magazine cover Time Magazine Cover

=<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 2em;">The Affordable Care Act = <span style="color: #686868; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 20px;">The Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in March 2010, gives you better health security by putting in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that hold insurance companies accountable, lower health care costs, guarantee more choice, and enhance the quality of care for all Americans. SEE: <span style="color: #003366; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">How it Works
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">The Act will not be implemented all at once. Portions of the law have already taken effect like provisions that implement a new Patient’s Bill of Rights that put an end to some of the worst insurance company practices.

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 19px;">The New Law
<span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">Before reform, cancer patients and individuals suffering from other serious and chronic diseases were often forced to limit or go without treatment because of an insurer’s lifetime limit on their coverage. Insurance companies can no longer put a lifetime limit on the amount of coverage enrollees receive, so families can live with the security of knowing that their coverage will be there when they need it most. <span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: left;">Up to
 * __ [|Ban Lifetime Limits] __
 * __ [|Bans Dropping Your Coverage When you Need It Most] __
 * __ [|Helps Cover Young Adults on Their Parent’s Plan] __
 * __ [|Prohibits Discriminating Against Children With Pre-Existing Conditions] __
 * __ [|Restricts the Use of Annual Limits] __

<span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: left;"> 20,400

<span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: left;">people who typically hit their lifetime limits will benefit from this provision. <span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: left;">Along with nearly

<span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: left;"> 102 mil.

<span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: left;">consumers who will no longer have a lifetime limit on their insurance policy.

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Benefits Starting on September 23, 2010
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">If you purchase or join a new plan on or after September 23, 2010 insurance companies must: **Cover recommended preventive services without charging out of pocket costs**: Services like mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations, pre-natal and new baby care are now covered, and insurance companies are prohibited from charging deductibles, co-payments or co-insurance. **Provide an opportunity to appeal coverage decisions**: Consumers are guaranteed the right to appeal insurance company decisions to an independent third party. **Guarantee enrollees their choice of primary care provider**: Consumers have their choice of provider within the plan’s network of doctors, including OB-GYNs and pediatricians, without a referral, as well as out-of-network emergency care. **These three provisions will benefit up to 88 million people by 2013.**

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">A Bridge to 2014
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">Other changes including new benefits, protections and cost savings will be implemented between now and 2014. The Affordable Care Act builds a bridge to 2014 when a new competitive insurance marketplace will be established. The new marketplace will include state-run health insurance exchanges where millions of Americans and small businesses will be able to purchase affordable coverage, and have the same choices of insurance as Members of Congress.

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Reducing Costs
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">The Affordable Care Act will bring down costs, improve the quality of health care delivered to all Americans and expand coverage to 32 million Americans. Independent experts have found that the new law helps reduce costs for families and businesses, cuts the deficit and strengthens Medicare, adding years to the trust fund while maintaining seniors guaranteed benefits. The Congressional Budget Office, the government’s non-partisan scorekeeper, said the Affordable Care Act would save over $100 billion over the next ten years, and over $1 trillion in the following decade.

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Progress
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">Many provisions in the Affordable Care Act are already being implemented, and other changes will be implemented through 2014 and beyond. The law is already strengthening our health care system. Provisions of the law that have already been implemented include: Important consumer protections and a new Patient’s Bill of Rights that end some of the worst insurance company abuses. New resources for states to help crack down on health insurance premium increases, protect consumers and develop health insurance exchanges where consumers will have the same health insurance choices as Members of Congress. The establishment of the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan to provide coverage to Americans who have been uninsured because of a pre-existing condition. Launch of the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program to make it easier for businesses to provide coverage to retirees who are not eligible for Medicare. Distribution of important information that will help small businesses claim the law’s small business tax credit. Cost saving measures, including provisions that will make our system more efficient. =<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 2em;">Relief for Americans & Businesses = <span style="color: #686868; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 20px;">The Affordable Care Act will ensure that American families and businesses have quality, affordable health care coverage options with a new health care marketplace that will be established in 2014. Until then, many Americans are able to access the coverage they need through essential reforms that take effect this year. SEE: <span style="color: #003366; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;"> __<span style="color: #003366; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">[|A new marketplace] __<span style="color: #003366; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px;">

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Relief Overview
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">See how you benefit from the Affordable Care Act.
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1em;">Families
 * <span style="color: #303030; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">The __ [|Patient’s Bill of Rights] __ will put an end to some of the worst insurance abuses and puts consumers, not insurance companies, in control of their health care. In 2014, new, competitive private health insurance exchanges will give millions of Americans the ability to pool together and purchase affordable, quality coverage.


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #336699; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1em;">Young Adults
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #336699; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1em;">Small Businesses
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #336699; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1em;">Economy
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #336699; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1em;">Seniors
 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #336699; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 1em;">Women

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Immediate Relief
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">We understand that many Americans need immediate relief in order to access the coverage they need until the new marketplace is established in 2014. That’s why the new law includes essential reforms that take effect this year: **Up to 4 million small businesses may be eligible for tax credits** that will make it easier for them to provide coverage to their workers by making premiums more affordable. **Young adults are allowed to remain on their parent’s plan** until their 26th birthday, unless they are offered coverage through their job. Up to 2.4 million young adults, up to 1.8 million who are uninsured and nearly 600,000 who purchase coverage in the individual market, could gain coverage through this provision of the new law. **Uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions can get insurance through the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Program (PCIP).** **Businesses, non-profits, State and local governments and unions may receive resources to maintain reliable health care** for their early retirees – between age 55 and 64. More than 2,000 employers have been approved to participate in the $5 billion Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. **States have received critical assistance** from the new $30 million grant program to establish Consumer Assistance offices that ensure consumers have a place to seek help while dealing with their insurance company. Additionally, 46 states are using resources provided by the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unreasonable premium increases.

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">A New Marketplace In 2014
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">In 2014, a new health care marketplace will be established and will ensure that American families and businesses have quality, affordable health care coverage options. In 2014: New, competitive private health insurance exchanges will give millions of Americans and small businesses the ability to pool together and purchase affordable, quality coverage, the same way large employers do. And the exchanges will offer the same choices of coverage that members of Congress will have. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be eligible for enhanced tax credits to help pay for their employees’ coverage. Small businesses with up to 100 employees in a state will be able to join SHOP Exchanges, where they can pool together with other businesses to buy affordable, quality coverage for their employees. Taken together, the provisions of the law are expected to expand coverage to 32 million Americans who would have otherwise been uninsured.

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Strengthening America's Fiscal Health
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">The law takes important steps to cut health care costs and reduce the deficit. Under the new law, Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today in the individual market will see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent and the total cost of care provided to Americans who get their insurance through the workplace could fall by as much as $3,000 a person. Families will also benefit from new tax credits that will help drive down costs. The new law provides refundable tax credits for Americans with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty (up to about $88,200 per year for a family of four) to purchase coverage through the state-based Exchanges. Many people in the individual market who qualify for tax credits could see their premiums drop by up to 60 percent relative to current premiums. The new law also strengthens our fiscal health. It employs a wide range of strategies that achieve the goal of greater value for health care, including provisions to: These measures will encourage providers to deliver higher quality care by creating payment structures that promote value. Taken together, the cost saving strategies in the law will make our health care system more efficient. Overall, the law reduces the deficit by over $100 billion this decade and by over $1 trillion in the next decade.
 * Fight waste, fraud, and abuse;
 * Reward providers for delivering high quality care; and
 * Reform our health care delivery system by developing innovative ways to manage care for patients, especially those who have chronic conditions, like diabetes.

<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 24px;">Protecting Seniors
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the fiscal health of Medicare was weak. The new law took steps to shift the course of Medicare and secured its long-term future. The law ensures that we continue to protect seniors’ guaranteed benefits, while taking important steps to fight waste, fraud and abuse, make the program more efficient and extending new benefits to seniors. Overall, the law extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, from 2017 to 2029, so it can remain a reliable source of coverage for current and future generations of seniors. <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 15px;">Medicare Spending With and Without Reform, 2009-2019 Before the new law passed, each year about a quarter of Medicare Part D beneficiaries hit the prescription drug coverage gap known as the "donut hole", where they would have to bear all the costs of their prescription drugs. The law has already provided 4 million people with Medicare with a one-time, tax-free $250 rebate to help reduce drug costs - the first step in completely closing the donut hole by 2020. This year seniors will get 50 percent discounts on covered brand name prescription drugs, receive free preventive care and a free annual wellness visit under Medicare. Before the Affordable Care Act, Medicare paid Medicare Advantage insurance companies over $1,000 more per person on average than Original Medicare. These additional payments were paid for in part by increased premiums by all Medicare beneficiaries - including the 77 percent of seniors not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. The new law levels the playing field by gradually eliminating Medicare Advantage overpayments to insurance companies. Guaranteed benefits will be protected for seniors in these plans.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Myth Health insurance reform will use my tax dollars to fund abortions. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Fact No. The health insurance reform legislation maintains the status quo of no federal funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman is endangered. A federal judge recently wrote "the express language of the [Affordable Care Act] does not provide for taxpayer funded abortion. That is a fact and it is clear on its face." <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Myth Businesses will suffer under health reform <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Fact Health insurance reform lowers costs for American businesses - especially small businesses - who are struggling to remain profitable and competitive under the status quo. The independent Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the bill would lower health insurance premiums for the same insurance plan by up to 4 percent for small businesses and 3 percent for large businesses, and estimates indicate that reform could save businesses $2,000 per person in health costs.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Myth Health reform will lead to a government takeover of health care. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Fact False – one independent group even called this myth the “lie of the year.” The Affordable Care Act puts people, not health insurance companies or government, in charge of health care. The new law strengthens the existing employer-based health insurance market while making the market fair for consumers by implementing landmark consumer protections. Families and individuals that don't have access to affordable coverage can receive tax credits to help them purchase coverage in the private health insurance market. There is no government-sponsored, public, or "single payer" plan in the law.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Myth The Affordable Care Act‘s individual responsibility requirement is unconstitutional. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 18px;">Fact This interpretation of the law is wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that affects all of us. When people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab – approximately $43 billion in 2008. That’s why the Affordable Care Act requires everyone who can afford it to carry some form of health insurance. 83 percent of Americans already have insurance and only those who are able to afford health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it. The individual responsibility provision also enables us to finally ban discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions. Without the individual responsibility provision, people could wait until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies could no longer say no or charge more. That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone in the individual insurance market.

=<span style="color: #880000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 2em;">First Lady Michelle Obama = [|Download Low-res (257 KB)] <span style="color: #336699; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 0.833em; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;">[|Download Hi-res (2262 KB)] When people ask First Lady Michelle Obama to describe herself, she doesn't hesitate to say that first and foremost, she is Malia and Sasha's mom. But before she was a mother -- or a wife, lawyer or public servant -- she was Fraser and Marian Robinson's daughter. The Robinsons lived in a brick bungalow on the South Side of Chicago. Fraser was a pump operator for the Chicago Water Department, and despite being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at a young age, he hardly ever missed a day of work. Marian stayed home to raise Michelle and her older brother Craig, skillfully managing a busy household filled with love, laughter, and important life lessons. [|Download Hi-res (2262 KB)] A product of Chicago public schools, Mrs. Obama studied sociology and African-American studies at Princeton University. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1988, she joined the Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin, where she later met the man who would become the love of her life. After a few years, Mrs. Obama decided her true calling was working with people to serve their communities and their neighbors. She served as assistant commissioner of planning and development in Chicago's City Hall before becoming the founding executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies, an AmeriCorps program that prepares youth for public service. In 1996, Mrs. Obama joined the University of Chicago with a vision of bringing campus and community together. As Associate Dean of Student Services, she developed the university's first community service program, and under her leadership as Vice President of Community and External Affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center, volunteerism skyrocketed. Promoting Service and working with young people has remained a staple of her career and her interest. Continuing this effort now as First Lady, Mrs. Obama in 2010 launched __ [|//Let’s Move!//] __, a campaign to bring together community leaders, teachers, doctors, nurses, moms and dads in a nationwide effort to tackle the challenge of childhood obesity. __ [|//Let’s Move!//] __ has an ambitious but important goal: to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation. __ [|//Let’s Move!//] __ will give parents the support they need, provide healthier food in schools, help our kids to be more physically active, and make healthy, affordable food available in every part of our country. In 2011, Mrs. Obama and Dr. Jill Biden together launched __ [|Joining Forces] __, a nationwide initiative that mobilizes all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned, and to raise awareness of military families' unique needs as pertains to employment, education and wellness. Joining Forces has been working hand in hand with American __ [|businesses who are committed to answering the President's challenge] __ to hire or train 100,000 unemployed veterans and military spouses by 2013. As First Lady, Mrs. Obama looks forward to continuing her work on the issues close to her heart — supporting military families, helping working women balance career and family, encouraging national service, promoting the arts and arts education, and fostering healthy eating and healthy living for children and families across the country. Michelle and Barack Obama have two daughters: Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10. Like their mother, the girls were born on the South Side of Chicago

Michelle Obama reads a christmas story to the Muppets Michelle Obama in Vera Wang at the Kennedy Center Honors Reception = **Obama Disapproval Ratings** = <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">President Obama's ratings on the the most important issue for his re-election -- the economy -- have posted the weakest showing of his presidency, according to a poll released Friday by CBS News. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">About 60 percent of voters said they disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy, the highest on record. Just 34 percent approve of the job he is doing on the matter. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">His overall approval ratings are just 43 percent, while 47 percent disapprove of the job he is doing as president. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Among independents, just 39 percent are satisfied with his performance, while 76 percent of Democrats and 12 percent of Republicans approve of his job performance. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"> About 47 percent of independents disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing for the United States, compared to 81 percent disapproval among Republicans and 21 percent disapproval among Democrats. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Those bleak numbers come just one day before eight Republican candidates hit the stage in Spartanburg, South Carolina, for the CBS News/National Journal debate on foreign policy at Wofford College. (The debate is at 8 p.m. ET -- watch on the CBS Television Network or <span style="color: #024382; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|here at CBSNews.com] .)

<span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">On foreign policy, Mr. Obama's ratings are higher. About 45 percent of respondents approve of the job he is doing, compared to 41 percent who disapprove of his foreign policy performance. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">On the specific subject of combating terrorism, about 63 percent approve of Mr. Obama's performance while 28 percent disapprove. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Despite Mr. Obama's weak approval ratings, they are still higher than the politicians at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Just 9 percent of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing, compared to 83 percent who disapprove of the legislature's job performance. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">And the disapproval ratings for Congress are nearly equal across party lines. About 82 percent of Democrats disapprove of Congress' job performance, compared to 78 percent of Republicans. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Independents were least impressed with Congress. Just six percent of those not identified with a major party approve of the job Congress is doing and about 86 percent do not approve. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">There appears to be little to look forward to for Mr. Obama and his campaign team. <span style="display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">About 86 percent of respondents think the economy is in bad shape now with just 13 percent who see it in good shape. And just 18 percent see it getting better while 32 percent see it getting worse.

= **Obama raises $70 million for campaign** = <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">President **Barack Obama** collected $43 million for his 2012 re-election campaign and helped raise an additional $27 million for the Democratic National Committee over the past three months, according to an email sent to supporters by campaign manager Jim Messina this morning. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">“If I could sum up this last quarter in a few words: You came through,” wrote Messina. He added that more than 600,000 people had donated to the campaign over the between July 1 and Sept. 30 and that 98 percent of the contributions were $250 or less.  <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">The total is substantially less than the $86 million Obama raised for his campaign and the DNC in the second quarter of the year but more than the $55 million that Messina had set as the third quarter goal in conversations with donors. By way of comparison, then President **George W. Bush** raised $50 million for his re-election campaign in the third quarter of 2003. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">The Obama campaign had warned that the typical summer slowdown in cash collection coupled with the cancellation of a number of fundraisers during the debt-limit talks would limit their total haul. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">During the 2008 campaign, then Sen. Obama collected a staggering $750 million — roughly $500 million of which came via online donations. At the start of the 2012 race, __ [|there was speculation that Obama might be the first political candidate to crest the $1 billion fundraising mark] __ although he seems unlikely to meet that lofty goal at this point. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">Still, Obama’s $43 million raised is more than double the $17 million collected by Texas Gov.**Rick Perry**, who is expected to be the leading fundraiser on the GOP side, over the same period. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">Texas Rep. __ [|**Ron Paul** is expected to report $8 million raised between July 1 and Sept. 30] __. Neither former Massachusetts governor **Mitt Romney** nor businessman **Herman Cain** — the two frontrunners for the GOP nomination — have released their third quarter fundraising totals, which are due at the Federal Election Commission by Saturday. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">Reports suggest Romney will raise between $11 and $14 million after bringing in $18 million in the second fundraising quarter. Cain is likely to come in well under that total. Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, brought in $2.6 million in the second quarter — a total that included a $500,000 personal loan. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">Republicans sought to cast Obama’s fundraising totals as evidence his paying attention to the wrong things. “It’s no secret President Obama spends a lot of time fundraising and is the most successful fundraiser in history,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski. “Obama’s problem is he can’t replicate that success when it comes to creating jobs.”

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 1.5em;">Obama Doesn't Name Names in Campaign

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">President <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Barack Obama] doesn’t utter Mitt Romney’s name in speeches and public remarks. He just uses the Republican front-runner’s words.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It is wrong for anyone to suggest that the only option for struggling responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom,” Obama said yesterday in Falls Church, <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Virginia], announcing his latest housing proposal.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">That “anyone” is the former Massachusetts governor, who last year told a newspaper in Nevada, the state with the highest foreclosure rate, that he wouldn’t intervene in the housing market.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said in an <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|interview] published Oct. 17 by the Las Vegas Review- Journal.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">As he seeks a second term, Obama shares the advantage afforded incumbents including former Presidents <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Bill Clinton] and <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|George W. Bush], allowing him to pursue his re-election while trying to avoid overt campaigning against an opponent.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“You don’t want to use the president in a way that makes he and Romney seem on the same plane, because it’s one of the advantages of running as president,” said Matthew Dowd, former strategist for Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and now a Bloomberg contributor.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">At the same time, by using official events and policy speeches to attack Romney, Obama runs the risk of ceding the presidential high ground too early.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">‘Too Cute’
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It’s a little bit too cute by half,” Dowd said.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">The White House communications director, <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Dan Pfeiffer], declined to comment. The<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Republican National Committee], along with Republican lawmakers such as Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, have dubbed Obama the “campaigner in chief.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Today, as Romney defended himself over a statement he made about the country’s poor, that word made its way twice into Obama’s remarks at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Washington]. The president and his advisers are seeking to frame the 2012 election as a “values” debate.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Caring for the poor and those in need,” Obama said. “These values are old.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">In a CNN interview yesterday, Romney said: “I’m not concerned about the very poor” because they have many programs to help them. He later told reporters on his campaign plane that the comment was taken out of context and said he meant that poor people have an “ample safety net,” including <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Medicaid (USBOMDCA)], housing vouchers and food stamps.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">Romney Response
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Obama’s approach shows that he knows Romney will be his biggest threat in November, Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Republican, said.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Rather than focusing on <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|job creation] and helping the middle class, President Obama and his allies are focused on attacking <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Mitt Romney] ,” Saul said in an e-mail.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">As the leader in the race for his party’s nomination, Romney has focused his rhetoric on Obama as much as his main Republican rival, former House Speaker <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Newt Gingrich]. The criticism includes Obama’s call for higher taxes on the wealthy, the government bailout of<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|General Motors Co. (GM)] and Chrysler Group LLC and the administration’s housing policy.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Obama’s campaign advisers have said they view Romney as Obama’s most likely opponent in November. The president and his surrogates haven’t let attacks by the Republican go unanswered.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">‘Politics of Envy’
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Over the past week, Obama has used six speeches to rebut Romney’s assertion, made in his victory speech after winning the New Hampshire primary, that president’s economic and tax policies are rooted in “the bitter politics of envy.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Just yesterday, <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Bill Gates] said he agrees with me that Americans who can afford it should pay their fair share,” Obama said of the <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)] co-founder Jan. 26 in Las Vegas.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“I promise you, Bill Gates does not envy the rich,” Obama said, prompting audience laughter. “This has nothing to do with envy. It has everything to do with math.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">One of the contrasts with Romney that Obama repeatedly has drawn is on the auto industry bailout. The administration says it saved 1 million jobs. Many of those are them in <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Michigan (BLM0MJ19)] and <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Ohio], two swing states that are crucial to amassing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Obama, who last week made his 10th trip to <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Michigan] since taking office, ties the resurgence of the auto industry since the bailout to his plans for expanding U.S. manufacturing.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">Auto Bailout
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It’s good to remember the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die,” Obama said Jan. 31 when he visited the Washington Auto Show.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">While Romney isn’t the only critic of the bailouts, the Republican candidate has said a government rescue “was the wrong way to go” and GM and Chrysler should have gone through a “managed bankruptcy process, a private bankruptcy process.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Michigan’s primary is Feb. 28. Romney has ties to the state. His father, the late George Romney, was a former governor.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“He’s engaging in the debate without engaging Romney,” said Tad Devine, a senior strategist for the president campaigns of Democrats <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Al Gore], the former vice president, and Massachusetts Senator <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|John Kerry]. “There’s a need to begin to present a contrast between what Romney is telling people and the way the president views these same issues.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">Slow Recovery
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">The tactic puts Obama on the offensive against a challenger while setting up a defense of his record for the campaign. His remarks on housing, made as he announced an initiative to help homeowners refinance underwater mortgages, are aimed at countering Romney and address one of Obama’s vulnerabilities: the state of the economy.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">Residential real estate <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|values] have dropped 33 percent from their July 2006 peak and have left about 11 million households owe more on their mortgages than the properties are worth. Federal Reserve Chairman <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Ben S. Bernanke] said in a speech in <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Minneapolis] on Sept. 8 said weakness in the housing market is a key reason “for the frustratingly slow pace of the recovery.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">One of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis, <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #0033cc; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|Nevada], is a battleground that Obama won in 2008 and his campaign is targeting for November. It’s also the site of the next Republican nominating contest on Feb. 4.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">“There’s some thought put into this,” Devine said. “They understand they can give the stage to Romney himself, which he would dominate, or they can provide a contrast.”

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">**Obama Campaign Jumps on Romney comments "Very Poor"** Fresh off his victory in the Florida primary, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney handed his Democratic opponents** [| a new quote] ** for them to use in such a way as to suggest he’s a heartless rich guy, the caricature Democrats are determined to draw of him. In an interview this morning on CNN, anchor Soledad O’Brien asked Romney about a new poll indicating that when it comes to “understanding the needs of average Americans,” President Obama scored 55 percent while he merited 39 percent. Romney said voters want to elect someone who “actually knows how it takes to improve their life, get home values rising again, to get jobs again in this country, and to make sure when soldiers come home they have a job waiting for them. And make sure people who are retired don’t have to worry about what’s going to happen at the end of the week.” He added: “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.” Before lunch, Obama 2012 campaign manager ** Jim Messina had tweeted **: ”So much for ‘we’re all in this together.’ Romney today: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor’” O’Brien had pressed Romney to explain what he meant. “You just said I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?” “Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them…The – the challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question. It’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income America. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college. That – these are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years.” However Romney meant the comment, as with “I like being able to fire people” – which in context he meant about consumers being able to choose insurance companies – the Obama campaign may be caricaturing Romney, but the former Massachusetts governor is handing them the magic markers. -Jake Tapper

As GOP Waged Ad War, Obama Geared up For a Fight
Reporting from Washington — President Obama’s reelection campaign spent $18.7 million in the last quarter building up a robust infrastructure, readying for a tough fight in this year’s general election. By the end of the year, the reelection campaign had staff in at least 28 cities, shelling out $290,000 on rent in locales as varied as Los Angeles; Anchorage; Laramie, Wy.; and Fargo, N.D. The most costly real estate was the campaign’s cavernous headquarters, which takes up 50,000 square feet on the sixth floor of a high-rise office building overlooking Chicago’s skyline. The campaign paid $83,333.33 in October and November for that space alone. With no ad buys last year, some of the biggest costs were payroll and payroll taxes, which together reached nearly $7 million. Another $1.7 million went into telemarketing, a sign of the strong fundraising push. And the campaign spent more than half a million dollars during this period on travel, including airlines, travel agencies, car rental and rail fees. Some beneficiaries of the campaign’s spending were companies in which Bain Capital, the private equity company once run by GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney, had a controlling interest at one time. Obama 2012 spent $8,456 at Staples, $720 at Domino’s Pizza and $75 at Dunkin’ Donuts. The more lavish spending was made by the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee of the reelection effort and the Democratic National Committee. That committee spent nearly $850,000 on catering, including $50,000 at the House of Blues and nearly $49,000 at the West Hollywood restaurant Fig & Olive for fundraisers held there in October. The victory fund spent an additional $1.1 million on merchandise expenses and fulfillment and $81,000 on entertainment. In all, Obama raised $68 million for his reelection and the Democratic Party in the last quarter of 2011, giving him a healthy cash advantage as he headed into the 2012 reelection. His reelection campaign alone ended the year with nearly $82 million on hand and $3 million of debt.

Obama Reelection Campaign begins in swing stat es WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama launched his first television ad of his re-election campaign, defending his energy record against criticism from a Republican-leaning outside group in a sign that the presidential race is entering a new phase even though Republicans have yet to pick a challenger. The ad, released Wednesday, responds to a $6 million ad campaign by a group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers accusing Obama of conducting pay-for-play politics in the bankruptcy of California energy company Solyndra, which imploded despite a $528 million federal loan. Obama's ad opens by citing "secretive billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts." It says that the president has added 2.7 million clean energy jobs while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, calling Obama's record on ethics "unprecedented." The voiceover ends by saying, "President Obama. Kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America's energy economy." The Obama campaign has bought ad time in Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Iowa and on national cable television, according to a campaign official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity and was not authorized to speak publicly about internal campaign strategy. Obama's campaign was expected to launch the television advertising on Thursday, the official said, showing that the president's advisers are moving to directly rebut attacks from super PACs and Republican presidential candidates who have assailed the president in early voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The ad comes in the aftermath of Obama's decision to reject a job-producing oil pipeline running from Canada through Texas, citing environmental and public safety concerns. It directly responds to a spot released by Americans for Prosperity charging Obama's campaign with collecting funds from Solyndra investors in exchange for the large federal loan, which failed to prevent the bankruptcy and the loss of more than 1,000 jobs. "Tell President Obama American workers aren't pawns in your political games," the ad says. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group headed by billionaires Charles and David Koch, began airing the 1-minute ad in the same six states where Obama's campaign will run its first advertising. The Koch brothers' energy company has bankrolled right-leaning causes and drawn frequent criticism from liberal groups. Obama's new ad will be coupled with stepped-up travel surrounding Tuesday's State of the Union address. The president heads to Florida on Thursday and then visits five states over three days next week to discuss the policies he'll pursue leading up to his re-election campaign. The president's advisers had anticipated a lengthy fight in the Republican primaries, but the decision to begin airing ads reflects the need to respond to criticism from outside Republican groups and prepare for a campaign against Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has won contests in Iowa and New Hampshire and shown strength in upcoming contests in South Carolina and Florida, giving him an inside track to the nomination. Obama has raised more than $220 million for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the end of 2011, giving him a strong foundation to run a national campaign across the airwaves and on the ground. In the State of the Union address, Obama is expected to draw parallels to a speech he delivered in Kansas in December, when he said the nation's middle class and those aspiring to the middle class faced "a make-or-break moment" and the nation needed economic policies that would give everyone a "fair shot and a fair share." The White House has not outlined specific policy proposals that the president intends to make in the address. But with the nation trying to move forward from a deep economic recession, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday the speech would carry economic themes similar to those the president has been discussing in other forums. "He is fiercely focused on economic growth and job creation and ... using every tool available to him to assist him in that project," Carney said. The president will discuss proposals from Tuesday's State of the Union address in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Phoenix on Jan. 25 and in Las Vegas and Denver on Jan. 26. On Jan. 27, Obama will speak in Detroit. All five states are considered critical to Obama's re-election. He won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, sending him on a path to the White House, but the state looks like a toss-up this year. Colorado, Nevada and Arizona are three Western states the president's campaign covets, while Michigan is expected to get ample attention from Republicans after the economic recession hurt the state's manufacturing base. Republicans said Obama's travels were politically motivated, accusing the president of being focused entirely on his re-election campaign. "It's clear President Obama has abandoned governing and is in complete campaign mode," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski. Of the 10 states Obama will visit in the next week or air TV advertising, he carried all in 2008 except Arizona.

[|COMPARE THE CANDIDATES] State of the Union Address 2012 Barack Obama media type="youtube" key="Zgfi7wnGZlE" height="315" width="560" //**After the American Century**// President Obama gave a crucial "state of the union" message last night, and hit a home run. His approval ratings have shot up to an unbelievable level, with 91% of Americans saying they approved his proposals for helping the economy. He looks ready to tell a more populist story than before, and it seems to be working. It was a powerful speech, and if you have not seen it, have a listen. If you want a quick summary, as one pundit put it, "Due to my policies, Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive."



Meanwhile, the Republicans have a problem. Their Mitt Romney had to confess that he makes $57,000 every single day, more than $20 million a year. This was according to the tax returns that he was forced to release by popular demand. He would have had to reveal his income if he became the candidate, but he ended up releasing the information the day that Obama was criticizing the rich for being irresponsible and avoiding paying their fair share of the taxes.

So where is Romney's money and how is it that he pays less than 14% in federal tax, about half the rate for the average American? It turns out Romney has some millions in tax havens, like the Caymen Islands, and in Swiss bank accounts. He is also the beneficiary of low tax rates on capital gains (from sale of stocks) - low rates put in place by the Republicans, of course. It appears that there is nothing actually illegal in the Romney tax records, but they are rather alarming. One begins to understand why he could offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000 about who was right on a particular issue. Ten grand is what Romney makes every six hours, even when sleeping, for not working.

The only problem Obama has now is that Romney may fold. Gingrich is running well ahead in national Republican polls, and slightly ahead or even in Florida, depending on the poll. So Romney is being attacked by both the right in his party and by the Democrats. Obama is betting that Gingrich would be easier to beat, and that it therefore is better to hammer Romney out of the way, leaving the President as the only one on the center ground.

The election will be decided by the moderates in each party and by the Independents, and all the indicators are that Obama is winning them over.Gingrich, by comparison, is much further to the right and bragging about it. One begins to sense doom for the Republicans now, unless they find an entirely new candidate at the last minute, which is very hard to do given the primary system. = President Obama's State Of The Union Confusion And Deception = <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #920a12; display: block; font-family: Verdana,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> [|+ Comment now] <span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-size: 12px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">0 1 0 0 0   <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">Image by Getty Images North America via @daylife <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">President __ [|Barack Obama] __’s State of the Union (SOTU) last week was another exhibition of what I have called calculated deception. That is the President’s practice of taking advantage of what he thinks the average person does not know and will not be told by the dominant party controlled media. For example, one deceptive Presidential theme is that that he has been trying so hard to create jobs and stimulate economic recovery, but he has been “obstructed” by the “Republican Congress.” He says they are playing politics because they are supposedly trying to keep the economy in the gutter to sink his reelection. Obama proclaimed in the SOTU, “But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on the economic crisis in the first place.” But there is no “Republican Congress.” That term is a deliberate deception right there. But Obama is so certain that many will not know that while the House has a firm Republican majority, the Senate still has a Democrat majority that has prevailed since the 2006 elections. Moreover, Obama is so certain that the average person will have long forgotten by now that in his first 2 years out of 3 in office so far, Obama enjoyed a Democrat supermajority in both houses that could have enacted anything he wanted. That new Republican House majority has been busy passing legislation that would revive jobs and the economy since day one, when it voted to repeal Obamacare. That repeal slashed trillions in future tax and spending burdens on the economy, and removed regulatory burdens that have already been murderous on jobs, such as the employer mandate. The mandate will force employers to buy the most expensive health insurance for their workers, ballooning the cost of hiring. The Republican House majority also passed the Ryan 2012 budget, which would have cut $6.2 trillion in federal spending in the first 10 years alone, eventually balancing the budget, and ultimately actually paying off the national debt if continued long enough. Moreover, the Ryan 2012 budget would do that while slashing income tax rates to 10% for families making less than $100,000 per year, and 25% for those making above, with the federal corporate tax rate slashed to 25% as well. Along with Reagan monetary and regulatory policies, that would restore the Reagan economic boom. But the Democratic Senate has refused to even take up any of this legislation passed by the Republican House. Indeed, the Democratic Senate has refused to even pass any budget for 2 years, in violation of federal law. Which raises the question, if Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats don’t have to obey the law, why should the rest of us have to? No movement on tax reform at all from President Obama and Senate Democrats, other than posturing speeches involving more calculated deception. No leadership by the President to get his own party to pass anything that would work to restore traditional American prosperity. That is because the President appears to favor a weak economy to maximize government dependency, which he thinks will result in more votes for himself and other pro-dependency Democrats. The SOTU was carefully crafted to promote this theme of supposed Republican obstructionism. Over and over, the President uttered vague rhetorical flourishes, and then demanded that Congress somehow turn this rhetoric into legislation that he can sign. For example, he said, “Most jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get them on my desk this year.” But how do you put “tear down regulations” in a bill? Which regulations? And what tax relief is he talking about? This rhetoric does not seemed designed to get legislation, but to provide a talking point about how the supposed “Republican Congress” once again failed to act to promote jobs and the economy. Here’s another example. Obama said, “Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings….Send me a bill that creates these jobs.” But what exactly is the proposal? Is Congress supposed to pass a bill that says it will “help manufacturers eliminate energy waste”? What exactly does “upgrade their buildings” mean? What incentives for what businesses? Once again, this rhetoric does not seem designed to result in legislation, but further talking points about inaction by the non-existent “Republican Congress,” when Obama’s dreamy rhetoric is not somehow turned into legislative language. But let us not pass over Obama’s own staunch opposition “to the very same policies that brought on the economic crisis in the first place.” Another central theme of Obama’s calculated deception is that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by the Reaganomics policies of deregulation and tax rate cuts begun 30 years ago. But as readers of this column know, the real causes of the financial crisis were government policies of overregulation and cheap dollar monetary policy, as thoroughly documented in such books, studies and articles as Paul Sperry, // The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About What Really Caused the Financial Crisis; // John B. Taylor, // Getting Off Track //; Gretchen Morgenson, // Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon //; Stan Liebowitz,// Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown //, The Independent Institute, Independent Policy Report, October 3, 2008; Peter Wallison, especially “The True Origins of the Financial Crisis,” // The American Spectator, //February, 2009; and my own book, // America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb //. The minimal interest rate, cheap dollar monetary policy of the Fed pumped up the housing bubble. Overregulation mandated the looting of the banks, forcing them to trash traditional lending standards because those standards were “discriminatory” to the poor who couldn’t afford their own home. That further pumped up the housing bubble and ensured that the banks were maximally vulnerable to the bubble. Government backing for the securitization of these toxic mortgages by __ [|Fannie Mae] __ and __ [|Freddie Mac] __ensured this vulnerability was spread throughout the financial community of the U.S., and the entire world. These policies of overregulation and cheap dollar monetary expansion were the opposite of Reaganomics. The results of the policies of Reaganomics were recently recounted by Henry R. Nau in the January 26 // __ [|Wall Street] __ Journal //: “the U.S. grew by more than 3% per year [in real terms] from 1980 to 2007, and created more than 50 million new jobs, massively expanding a middle class of working women, African-Americans and legal as well as illegal immigrants. Per capita income increased by 65%, and household income went up substantially in all income categories.” Notice that Obamanomics pursuing the opposite of Reaganomics is producing the opposite of these results. As Professor Nau explains:

> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #2f3236; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">What were the policy trends that produced this Great Expansion? Precisely the free-market policies of deregulation and lower marginal income-tax rates that Mr. Obama decries. President Reagan’s decision to reverse the high tax, loose-money, and interventionist government policies of the 1970s brought an end to the painful “stagflation of that decade….Sadly, [Obama’s] policies resemble those that brought on the stagflation of the 1970s, not those that ignited the Great Expansion. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">No calculated deception in the speech was more brazen, however, than what Obama said about energy:

> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #2f3236; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years….last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years. We have a supply of natural gas that can last nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">But not only did the Obama Administration not do anything to enable the technological breakthroughs that produced these results, it has actually fought increased oil and gas production every step of the way, and has continually threatened the fracking technology that has made the sharply increasing American production possible. As Phil Kerpen explains in his book // Democracy Denied, s //hortly after Obama took office, his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “canceled land leases for energy development on 77 parcels of land in Utah. Then he canceled a pending oil-shale lease sale based on his expert judgment that it ‘didn’t meet the smell test.’” Kerpen adds, “Overall there has been a steep drop-off in leasing on federal lands….2010 saw a 79 percent drop in leasing in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming from 2005. __ [|Total] __ onshore royalties dropped 33 percent in just two years.” Obama promised increased offshore drilling before, during his 2008 campaign. As Kerpen further explains:

> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #2f3236; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">Salazar’s first public policy statement, just weeks after being confirmed… focused on stopping the opening of the outer continental shelf….The policy stance of the Obama Administration throughout 2009—a year of severe economic weakness—was to ignore the overwhelming desires of the American people and do nothing to move forward on the no-cost, genuine, stimulus policy of allowing access to offshore oil and gas. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;">In March, 2010, Obama announced a supposed offshore drilling plan, to great fanfare celebrated by the Democrat captive media (e.g. the // New York Times //). But that just turned out to be more calculated deception as well. Kerpen explains, “He was promising to allow a limited lease sale for waters beyond 50 miles—past where geologists think most of the oil is.” The plan actually involved, Kerpen further explains, reimposing the offshore ban within 50 miles along the East Coast, and entirely north of Delaware and on the entire West Coast. It was even accompanied by canceling 5 lease sales in Alaska. Then outright lawlessness occurred in the offshore drilling moratorium imposed by Obama’s Interior Dept. in response to the 2010 Gulf oil spill, as found by U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman. That lawlessness crippled Gulf oil production. Obama told us, “[I]t was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock.” This is another self-serving fairy tale. The fracking technology that has created the natural gas, and now oil, breakthroughs was developed 50 years ago by private oil and gas interests, and has been in use for over 40 years in more than one million wells, with not one proven case of the groundwater contamination manipulative environmentalists decry. But the all time whopper of calculated deception that Obama tells is the fable of the Great Hustler Warren Buffett. As Obama regaled us in the SOTU, “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary….Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.” The picture of America’s tax policy that Obama paints is the opposite of reality. In 2007, before President Obama was even elected, the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, about twice their share of income. // In fact, the top 1% of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined! // This is all as reported in official IRS data. // This was after nearly 40 years of the policies of Reaganomics! // Moreover, this does not count the burdens of the corporate income tax, which is how not only Obama but dishonest liberal Democrats across the board create the phony statistic about Buffett and his secretary. They just ignore the existence of the federal corporate income tax entirely, with its 35% rate. The // Wall Street Journal //reported the actual facts on January 26, saying, “In fact, the Congressional Budget Office notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about twice the 15.1% paid by middle class families.” The capital gains tax is paid on top of the corporate income tax, not instead of it. Investment income is taxed once by the corporate income tax, and then by the capital gains or dividends tax when it is passed through to the individual. That makes for a total effective rate on investment income of 45%. Bringing it down to the 30% of Obama’s Buffett Rule would require further tax rate cuts. But what Obama is proposing would actually double the capital gains tax rate to 30%, leaving America with the third highest capital gains rate in the developed world. That would be on top of the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. And it would be on top of all the tax rate increases already scheduled to go into effect next year under current law, with the Obamacare taxes becoming effective, and the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire. Obama calculates that the average American doesn’t know anything about that. Obama and the Democrats play acting as if they don’t understand the corporate income tax leaves America uncompetitive and falling behind in the world. It means less jobs and declining income for you and your friends and neighbors. But they don’t care as long as their calculated deception can trick enough voters to get them past the next election. As for Mr. Buffett, a higher capital gains rate will not affect the tax shelter fund that has made him a billionaire. It would only make it more attractive as a tax shelter alternative. So he prospers by calling for higher taxes and a reduced standard of living for the rest of us. In fact, he is lionized in the leftist media and by President Obama as a result, which has to greatly please the 82-year old billionaire.

=<span style="font-family: georgia,serif; font-size: 2.166em;"> Obama and Netanyahu: the president of hope meets the PM of doom = <span style="color: #666666; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 1.333em;">Their testy meeting over Iran's nuclear ambitions showed how far the Palestinian question has dropped down the agenda Binyamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama at their meeting at the White House Photograph: Rex Features <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">At least they looked each other in the eye this time. But there was no escaping the sense that once again [|Israel] 's prime minister was playing schoolmaster to the US president's recalcitrant pupil. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> [|Binyamin Netanyahu] arrived at the White House to pour forth the routine thanks for America's faithful support, although [|Barack Obama] might have flinched at the Israeli leader's reference to [|Iran] 's view of the relationship: "To them, you're the great Satan, we're the little Satan." <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">But then Netanyahu got to the heart of the matter. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">He had looked a little tense, his hands firmly lodged on his splayed legs, as Obama welcomed him to the Oval office. There was still the chilliness that has characterised the relationship since they first met as leaders three years ago and the president mistakenly thought he could rail-road Netanyahu into halting the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank – a major obstacle to serious peace talks with the Palestinians. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Last year, Netanyahu established who was really in charge when he humiliated Obama by lecturing him in public at the White House on the Holocaust and Israel's history. They could barely look at each other. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">This time though there's the threat of war to worry about, so they decided to try to make nice in public. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Obama again assured Netanyahu that the Jewish state can rely on him. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">"The [|United States] will always have Israel's back," he said for the third time in recent days. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Netanyahu thanked the president for his speech to the US's pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), on Sunday. [|Obama had demanded an end to the "loose talk of war"] and "bluster" against Iran – a clear reference to the noise out of Netanyahu's government. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">He called for time for sanctions to dissuade Tehran from pursuing a nuclear bomb, if that's what it's doing. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Netanyahu ignored all that. The bit he honed in on was Obama's statement that Israel has the right to decide what is best for its own security. The tone in the Oval office changed. Netanyahu put on his grave voice. The teacher focused on the disruptive schoolboy who looked on without giving away he'd heard this all many times before. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">"Israel must have the ability, always, to defend itself, by itself against any threat," he said. "When it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the sovereign right to make its own decisions." <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">So it was perfectly clear then. Netanyahu would like the world to think he is ready to bomb Iran. Obama would like the world to think he's opposed to the idea. Between those two positions the leaders of that other special relationship – the real one – appear to have reached an accommodation: Israel will attack Iran if it must but it should stop talking about it. Whether it will come to that is a matter of speculation as intense as Iran's alleged effort to build a nuclear bomb. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Certainly there's opposition in America. The Israelis arrived to be confronted by a full-page advert in the Washington Post placed by retired US generals and intelligence officers declaring Mr President: Say No to War of Choice with Iran. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Much of the public appears to agree. A Pew Research poll on Monday said 51% of Americans want the US to stay neutral if Israel attacks Iran. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Yet it was clear from the encounter that Netanyahu has already scored a major victory. Where once meetings of the two were dominated by talk about the Palestinians, this time there was but the briefest of mentions by Obama and none by Netanyahu. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Three years ago, Obama was promising to shift the weight of US power to drive Israel towards a deal with the Palestinians whether it really wants one or not. But the president of hope has been confronted with the prime minister of doom. Netanyahu sees only threats. The Arab Spring is a menace — more like an Arab Winter. Hamas is seeping into the Palestinian power structure. And now there's Iran. <span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Israel's threat of another war has at least saved Netanyahu from having to talk to Obama about his least favourite subject; the future of a people who have yet to be given the right to make their own decisions

=<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 18px;"> President Obama to hold first news conference since November = By __ [|David Nakamura] __ President Obama will hold his first solo news conference since November on Tuesday, offering some counter-programming as Republican voters in 10 states cast their votes in the GOP presidential primary. Obama is scheduled to take questions from reporters at 1:15 p.m. in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. Likely topics include__ Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions __, __ rising gas prices __and the national debate over the Obama administration’s__  health care rule __requiring most employers to provide contraception coverage. The last time the president took __ questions from reporters __ by himself was on the final day of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Hawaii in November. The last time he did so at the White House was last October, when he __ met the press in the East Room __ while pushing his jobs agenda. On Monday, a senior administration official dismissed the notion that Obama was intentionally trying to steal some of the spotlight from his GOP rivals, saying the date just made the most sense for Obama’s schedule. The president is scheduled to leave Washington on Wednesday for Charlotte, N.C., where he will speak on his energy policies. On Friday, he will make an __ official appearance in Prince George, Va. __, and then head to Houston for a pair of fundraisers. = Obama Seeks to End Subsidies for Oil and Gas Companies  = <span style="color: #909090; display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 0.9em; text-align: right;">Doug Mills/The New York Times <span style="color: #666666; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">President Obama was in New Hampshire on Thursday, visiting the automotive building at Nashua Community College. NASHUA, N.H. — With his re-election fate increasingly tied to the price Americans are paying at the gas pump, __ [|President Obama] __ asked Congress on Thursday to end $4 billion in subsidies for __ [|oil] __ and gas companies and vowed to tackle the country’s long-term energy issues while shunning “phony election-year promises about lower gas prices.” <span style="color: #004276; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; text-decoration: none;">[|Enlarge This Image]

<span style="color: #909090; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 0.9em; text-align: right;">Doug Mills/The New York Times
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Mr. Obama held a chart about oil usage at the school. Mr. Obama, in an appearance at Nashua Community College here, took a page out of his jobs strategy of last year, calling on Americans to contact their Congressional representatives and demand a vote on the oil subsidies in the next few weeks. “You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.” The president criticized Republicans who have called for the country to increase its own oil production, declaring that “anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” With the United States consuming more than 20 percent of the world’s oil while having only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Mr. Obama said “we can’t rely on fossil fuels from the last century.” Calling for renewed investment in alternative energy, he vowed to make a “serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.” Mr. Obama’s decision to spotlight his proposal to end oil and gas subsidies immediately opened him up to criticism from Republicans, who noted that the proposal was unlikely to help lower the price of gas at the pump. The office of the House speaker, John A. Boehner, sent an e-mail to reporters citing an analysis by the Congressional Research Service last March that found that ending the subsidies could make oil and natural gas more expensive. Mr. Boehner also told reporters that after meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House on Wednesday, it did not appear that the president would support tapping into the __ [|Strategic Petroleum Reserve] __ as a way to curb rising gas prices. “It didn’t appear to me that the president believes using S.P.R. would have any meaningful effect on gas prices,” Mr. Boehner said. The oil reserve was created four decades ago to help the country deal with emergencies in oil supply. Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to say whether the president would tap into the reserves if gas prices continued to rise. Speaking to reporters aboard __ [|Air Force One] __ en route to New Hampshire, Mr. Carney maintained that the president was fixed on long-term solutions to the country’s oil dependence. Mr. Carney said oil companies “do not deserve and do not need” subsidies or tax breaks financed by taxpayers. He described the president as “very concerned” about the impact the spike in gas prices is having on American families. Mr. Obama’s political advisers are concerned as well, and have indicated privately that Mr. Obama would have a tough time winning re-election if the price at the pump reached or exceeded $5 a gallon. In New Hampshire on Thursday, Mr. Obama chided Republicans who he said were hoping to gain political advantage from the rise in oil prices. “Now I know this is hard to believe, but some politicians are seeing higher gas prices as a political opportunity,” Mr. Obama said. “You’re shocked, aren’t you? And right in the middle of an election year. Who would’ve thought?” “Only in politics do people respond to bad news with such enthusiasm,” he said. Appearing in North Dakota on Thursday, one of Mr. Obama’s Republican challengers, Mitt Romney, said the president was out of touch. North Dakota has benefited from the discovery of the Bakken Shale, an oil-rich deposit. “Today the president is going to be in New Hampshire talking about energy in North Dakota,” Mr. Romney said. “He’s about as far away from North Dakota as he can get and still be in the United States. His idea of course is to be far enough away from the people who know what’s really going on right here to maybe try and blow one past folks.” Republicans in Congress, struggling to regain their message as the economy improves, have latched on to rising oil prices and lobbed new accusations of culpability at the White House almost every day this week. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have been able to get legislative traction on their proposed solutions. House Republican leaders tried to pay for a major transportation and infrastructure bill with receipts from federal lands they would open to oil drilling, but that legislative move appears to have collapsed. They continue to press the Obama administration to approve an oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. “We are seeing some positive economic news, but it is being overshadowed for many families by soaring oil costs,” Mr. Boehner said on Thursday, as he pressed the president to issue more oil leases in offshore areas and to hasten oil drilling permits. For their part, Democrats blame speculators for the spike in oil prices, but efforts to mandate a review by the Federal Trade Commission have not gotten far, and the party is divided on whether to press for the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Largely absent from the partisan bickering has been the role tensions over Iran have played in the price rise. > = Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama =

**Barack Obama Presidential Job Approval** //Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?//

||  ||  **Approve** =<span style="color: #010101; font-family: Arial,Verdana,'Trebuchet MS',sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 26px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|CNN Poll: Obama approval rating back to 50% mark] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 24px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 42px;"><span style="color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|CNN Political Unit]   = **Washington (CNN)** - President Barack Obama's approval rating is back to 50% for the first time in more than eight months, and he currently holds an edge against all the remaining Republican presidential candidates in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups, according to a new national survey. And a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday also indicates that the GOP's advantage on enthusiasm has been erased, and that the number of Americans who think things are going well in the country is on the rise. Six out of ten say things are going poorly in the country, but four out of ten say things are going well, up 15 points since November. <span style="color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|See full results (pdf)] **Follow the Ticker on Twitter: <span style="color: #004276; font-family: inherit; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">[|@PoliticalTicker] ** "Does that mean it's morning in America? It is for Democrats - a solid majority of them now say things are going well in the country. But overall, six in ten still have a gloomy outlook about the state of the country," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Optimism is on the rise among independent voters, with a notable increase among men as well, although a majority of both groups still think things are going poorly." The rise of Americans who say things are going well appears to be helping the president, whose approval rating now stands at 50%, with 48% saying they disapprove of the job Obama's doing in the White House. The president's approval rating has edged up three points from last month and is up six points from November. The last time Obama's approval rating was at 50% or above was last May, as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and it stayed there for about a month before fading. "Independents now have a net-positive view of President Obama," says Holland. "His approval rating has also reached 50% in the suburbs." Looking ahead to November, the poll indicates that the president's re-election chances are on the rise. In hypothetical matchups among registered voters, Obama holds a 51%-46% margin over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, leads both former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by the same 52%-45% advantage, and beats former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 55%-42%. The president appears to have gained ground since January against Romney, Paul, and Gingrich. Only Santorum has held steady. The poll also indicates that Obama wins a majority of independent voters in all four general election match-ups. "More than six in ten Americans believe that the policies of Romney and Gingrich favor the rich; Santorum and Paul do better on that measure, but only a quarter feel that way about Obama," says Holland. The survey suggests that the contentious Republican primary season has decreased enthusiasm among Republican voters, virtually erasing the "enthusiasm gap" that promised to provide the ultimate GOP presidential nominee with a major advantage in the fall. In October, 64% of Republicans said that they were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president, compared to only 43% of Democratic voters. GOP enthusiasm since that time has tumbled 13 points, to 51%, virtually the same as the Democrats' level of enthusiasm. Other findings in the poll: 67% of the public says they are either very or somewhat angry about the way things are going in the country, down five points from September. And 31% approve of the job Democrats in Congress are doing, with 22% giving congressional Republicans a thumbs up. Both numbers are virtually unchanged from last autumn.
 * WEEKLY AVERAGES FROM GALLUP DAILY POLLING**
 * **Disapprove** ||  **No opinion**  ||
 * **2012** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 2012 Feb 27-Mar 4 || 45  ||  48  ||  6  ||
 * 2012 Feb 20-26 || 45  ||  47  ||  8  ||
 * 2012 Feb 13-19 || 45  ||  47  ||  8  ||
 * 2012 Feb 6-12 || 47  ||  47  ||  6  ||
 * 2012 Jan 30-Feb 5 || 46  ||  47  ||  8  ||
 * 2012 Jan 23-29 || 45  ||  48  ||  8  ||
 * 2012 Jan 16-22 || 45  ||  46  ||  9  ||
 * 2012 Jan 9-15 || 45  ||  47  ||  8  ||
 * 2012 Jan 2-8 || 46  ||  47  ||  8  ||
 * **2011** ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 2011 Dec 26-2012 Jan 1 || 42  ||  49  ||  9  ||
 * 2011 Dec 19-25 || 45  ||  47  ||  9  ||
 * 2011 Dec 12-18 || 42  ||  50  ||  8  ||
 * 2011 Dec 5-11 || 43  ||  50  ||  7  ||
 * 2011 Nov 28-Dec 4 || 42  ||  50  ||  8  ||
 * 2011 Nov 21-27 || 43  ||  49  ||  8  ||
 * 2011 Nov 14-20 || 43  ||  49  ||  9  ||
 * 2011 Nov 7-13 || 43  ||  48  ||  9  ||
 * 2011 Oct 31-Nov 6 || 43  ||  50  ||  8  ||
 * 2011 Oct 31-Nov 6 || 43  ||  50  ||  8  ||

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from February 10-13, with 1,026 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points



= = Obamas reelection

<span style="color: #888888; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; vertical-align: baseline;"> 5, 2012 7:05pm =<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 39px; vertical-align: baseline;">Obama Campaign Makes Anti-Romney Case in Bullet Points, Infographics = W ith bullet points and infographics, the Obama campaign is making a primary-eve case against [|Mitt Romney], using his stint as Massachusetts governor as “Exhibit A.” “Today, Romney is hitting the ‘repeat’ button,” deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter wrote in a [|memo] hours before Massachusetts primary voters head to the polls. Massachusetts is one of 10 states holding GOP primaries or caucuses on Tuesday. “He is making the same case to America that he made to Massachusetts a decade ago. He is promising to grow jobs and shrink deficits, even though his past record fails to support his ability to do so,” she said. “What’s worse is that his current policy promises run counter to these goals.” Cutter points out that under Romney’s tenure between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts was the 47th state out of 50 in job growth; manufacturing output dropped by twice the national average; state debt rose by 16.4 percent; and state government — as measured by jobs created — grew six times as quickly as the private sector. The memo also warns of the impact of Romney’s proposed tax and spending cuts, which would “disproportionately favor the wealthiest Americans,” according to analysis from the independent Tax Policy Center and Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The Obama campaign has focused almost exclusively on Romney in the days before Super Tuesday, seeking to undermine his candidacy as the most likely and formidable challenger to President Obama this fall. Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said the latest Obama attack is an attempt to distract from the president’s economic record. “As governor, Mitt Romney grew the economy, helped create thousands of jobs, balanced budgets and cut taxes,” she said.”President Obama and his campaign obsessively continue on in their ‘kill Romney’ strategy with distortions and false negative attacks.

=<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 30px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="blox-headline entry-title" style="color: #222222; font-family: inherit; font-size: 30px; vertical-align: baseline;">Election 2012: The birth control mandate = <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: #efefef; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">  GOP Presidential hopefuls    While the Obama administration views this mandate as giving women more control over their own bodies by allowing them the option of the morning after pill and other contraceptives free of charge, many of the Republican candidates view this as an infringement upon the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Mitt Romney, the Republican winner of the Maine, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada primaries, has voiced his opposition toward the provision. On Monday, Romney explained that this mandate is a "violation of conscience" and that "we must have a president who is willing to protect America's first right, our right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience." Carney has criticized Romney for inconsistency, claiming that Obama's policy is identical to the one in place in Massachusetts while Romney was governor, according to the Associated Press.

Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, goes a step further from other Republican candidates opposed to the law by claiming he is "the only choice for Americans seeking a candidate they can trust to reverse the Obama administration's assault on their religious and other liberties" in a statement on Thursday. Paul has presented his "Plan to Restore America," which would repeal all aspects of Obama's government-funded healthcare plan.

Rick Santorum, the Republican primary winner of Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri and a member of the Catholic Church, has used this as an opportunity to attack Romney, as well as Obama, in the same vein as Carney. In an op-ed featured in Politico on Tuesday, Santorum wrote: "The actions of President Obama - as well as the actions of then-Governor Romney - raise some questions. From where do we receive our fundamental human rights? Are they given to us by the government - whether that be State or Federal? Or, as the American Founders insisted, are these rights endowed upon us by a Creator?"

Unlike the other Republican candidates, Newt Gingrich, the winner of the South Carolina Republican primary and also a Catholic, supports Obama's birth control mandate. Gingrich explained at a campaign event in Cleveland, Ohio on Wednesday that he believes "the regulation itself is a good idea ... birth control plays an important role in modern society, and I've come to the realization that more women should have access to it." <span style="color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #666666; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="color: #2f2f2f; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">   Tom Gralish

OBAMA
President Barak Obama speaks on health reform at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pennsylvania on Monday, March 8, 2010. (Tom Gralish/Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT)

President Obama Friday announced an accommodation from a birth control mandate for religiously affiliated healthcare providers, which will excuse organizations in opposition to the current ruling based on religious reasons from the mandate. However, women employed by these organizations would still be able to receive free contraceptives and morning after pills directly from their insurance companies. This accommodation has not been accepted by the pro-life camp or by Catholic bishops. According to Dr. Carol Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt, the birth control mandate "violates a freedom of conscience, and many people believe they should have the right to not violate these rights when it comes to religion." "The impact that this issue will have on the election depends on how the media frames the issue, and whether this is seen as a real accommodation or as a way (for Obama) to change the conversation," Swain said. "This is significant in the context of a broader attack on religious freedom that many people feel. In isolation, it does not amount to much; however, because the American people view this as an infringement on religious freedom, it impacts how people now view the President, Republicans and Democrats." With only seven months remaining until the 2012 Presidential Election, the issue has refocused the campaign on social issues and reignited the Religious Right's fervent opposition to the Obama administration. The Obama administration passed the birth control mandate last month. Effective on Aug. 1, the bill ensures access to birth control pills and the Plan B morning after pill. This mandate legislates that all employers, universities and hospitals must supply contraception and morning after pills in their employees' health insurance plans. According to religious leaders, specifically Catholic bishops, the mandate conflicts with fundamental beliefs against contraception held by Catholic universities and hospitals. President Obama passed the legislation as a part of his 2010 healthcare plan. In response to the Catholic uproar against this act, Press Secretary Jay Carney defended the new mandate during a press conference at the White House this week maintaining, "The administration believes that this strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services

=<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 26px;">Obama to Occupy Wall St. Protesters: "You are the reason I ran for office." =

President Obama __ [|hugs] __ an increasingly __ [|unpopular] __, __ [|vulgar, and lawless] __ movement. __ [|//The Hill// reports] __ that after President Obama was heckled by protesters at an event in New Hampshire, he said: > “I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I'll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?” > A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.” Matthew Continetti writes on the Occupy movement in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "__ [|Anarchy in the U.S.A.] __" (Hat tip: __ [|Allahpundit] __) **Update**: Here's the video: And Obama's full quote: > “Families like yours, young people like the ones here today — including the ones who were just chanting at me — you’re the reason that I ran for office in the first place.”