Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, offered a $100 reward on Wednesday to anyone who snaps a photo today of Bob Casey, the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, with President Obama during his visit to the state.
"I've got $100 dollars... for any person that can get us a picture here," Priebus told reporters on a conference call. Priebus said that in an effort to distance himself from the president and his low approval ratings, Casey may suddenly come down with a "24 hour flu."
Rob Gleason, the chairman of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, said on the call that he would be "shocked" if Casey fails to make an appearance.
"That would be a slap in the face to the president," Gleason said, because it would suggest a "lack of confidence in the president's ability to get elected."
As of Wednesday morning, Casey's campaign had not publicly released the senator's plans. It remained unclear whether he would appear with the president during Obama's appearance in Scranton.
Casey is up for re-election next year in a state where the president has dismal approval ratings. A Public Policy Polling survey released last week showed the president with a 42 percent approval rating and a 53 percent disapproval rating in Pennsylvania.
Polls show that for now-- in the absence of a clear Republican challenger-- Casey maintains a lead over the major potential Republican candidates for his seat. He is more popular than the president among Pennsylvania voters.
Pennsylvania and its electoral votes will play a key role in the 2012 presidential election. Gleason, although opposed to the president and his policies, said Wednesday that Obama's visits are positive in that they signal his home state's prominence in national politics.
"I love that he comes here ... and I hope he continues to come," Gleason said of the president.
Obama is scheduled to meet with a Scranton-area family at their home Wednesday afternoon and deliver remarks at Scranton High School. run away, run away
He said it was 'heck' when he was in school. Really nice guy, though.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
12/01/2011 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"I know Reince. That's his real name."
Do you know whatever possessed his parents, Mullah Richard?
That's marginally worse than "Sue."
Posted by: Barbara ||
12/01/2011 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I asked another friend of his that's known him longer and apparently it's a family name on his dad's side of the family. It is unique, though.
The topic never came up in our conversations about immigration work vouchers, entitlement programs and torte reform (he IS a lawyer so I had to ask him his take - he feels it's seriously needed but would be tough to pass anything meaningful in the next decade as there are too many 'interest groups' dumping huge sums against it right now).
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
12/01/2011 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
so much for Casey trying to distance himself quietly....nice job Reince, and better than Michael "incompetence" Steele, already
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/01/2011 22:50 Comments ||
Top||
speaking at the fundraiser, Obama said,
"I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,...We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security ... and that will continue."
Amazing use of language there.
Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress at whose home the fundraiser took place
...said "it would be remiss for me not to say there are many in the Jewish community who are concerned" about the relationship between Israel and the United States.
Indeed.
Rosen added, however, that "America has never been as supportive of the state of Israel as President Obama and his administration."
And that is one of those 'facts contradicting the conclusion' thingies. The question is, are they lying to themselves or to us?
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
12/01/2011 10:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama supports Israel, the same way that Geithner and Rangel support paying taxes, and Holder supports rule of law.
Posted by: Cincinnatus Chili ||
12/01/2011 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The question is, are they lying to themselves or to us?"
Yes. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
12/01/2011 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration
[Real Clear Politics] President B.O. explains why he's "going to give" Congress "another chance" to pass measures in his jobs bill.
Obama also claims that he is the tax-cutter in the race.
"I know you hear a lot of folks on cable TV claiming that I am this 'big tax and spend liberal.' Next time you hear that, you just remind the people who are saying it that since I've taken office, I've cut your taxes. Your taxes -- your taxes today, the average middle class family, your taxes today are lower than when I took office. Just remember that. We have cut taxes for small businesses, not once, not twice, but 17 times. The average family's tax burden is among the lowest it's been in the last 60 years. So the problem is not that we've been raising taxes. We've been trying to give families a break during these tough times," Obama said at a campaign event in Scranton, Penn.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/01/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yep.
Lose your job,
less income,
don't pay as much in taxes.
#4
I'm not surprised that he said it -- hell, he probably just rattled it off as the words rolled past on the teleprompter without even giving it a single thought.
#7
One more reason elections should be held the day after tax day. I don't care if he did create more tax cuts, if the IRS is taking a bigger chunk out of a smaller yearly salary he's making stupid cuts.
I take back everything I've ever said about Zardari, Gilani, and the EU science council.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
12/01/2011 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As Reagan would say to Carter whenever he tried to put forward one of his blatant distortions and lies in the 1980 race for POTUS... "There you go again."
[Iran Press TV] US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says more sanctions planned against Iran over its nuclear program are leading down the destructive path of war.
In an article titled, 'The Folly of Sanctions,' Paul sharply criticizes US foreign policy for imposing more sanctions against Iran and warned about its "unintended consequences."
He explained that sanctions are not only acts of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war, starting with a bombing campaign.
"Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path," the presidential hopeful warned. "Sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack."
The Texas congressman also wrote that "according to the ineffective International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report, just out this month, there is no evidence that Iran has diverted enriched uranium from the peaceful and lawful generation of power towards building a nuclear weapon."
"According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he added.
Paul also called on the US administration to use "diplomacy rather than threats and hostility" dealing with Iran.
He also warned that more sanctions against Iran would have a direct effect on US economy.
"The tougher sanctions currently under consideration would disrupt global trade and undermine the US economy, which in turn harms our national security," Paul wrote.
He concluded that "this race to war against Iran and Syria is both foolhardy and dangerous."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/01/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#2
"According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he added.
That's the problem with libertarian purists. They think everyone else shares their "enlightened self-interest" outlook. When in fact there are some truly malevolent aggressors out there, whose self-interest is entirely hostile and barbaric.
#3
The other problem is that they think "diplomacy" can work. If so, the mullahs would have stopped long ago. Talk will never stop someone intent on an end.
#4
Yumm, watermelon soup, served up fresh by Pauly.
Its these fools who think that WWII happened because FDR put sanctions on Imperial Japan which then of course forced the benevolant Japanese to invade everything Pacific and Indian. Had the USA just allowed material to flow into Japan, them and the Chinese, who were such good friends at the time, could have come up with viable wind energy and Europe would be home to exotic penguins.
Sit down Paul, I think the heat has gotten to your head.
#5
Sanctions will increase oil prices and screw the economy of the world even worse while the usual suspects find ways around them.
Sanctions made Castro and Saddam rich and helped them solidify power while blaming the sanctions and the world for the ills they created. Sanctions need to be rethought.
Blowing stuff up, or directly financing and training opposition works faster and better.
#6
FRom what I can see from the other side of the pond and what I can infer about his positions on American Civil War Ron Paul is not for a small goovernnment: he is for a small America
#7
Sanctions don't always lead to war. Anybody remember the U.S. war against Cuba? South Africa? Sudan? Me neither.
Posted by: American Delight ||
12/01/2011 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Act of War, in a way yes.
A step in a process of hostilities, sure.
Sanctions cause wars, no. If you are doing sanctions you are already not getting along.
Sanctions work. Blockades work. But they only work if those involved are serious about them, otherwise you end up with UN food for oil money laundering and publically watching goofballs and losers piss and kick dirt on your gauntlet.
Remember, Obama placed sanctions on Honduras (a sad chapter in a sad book) in order to directly influence their politics. They were influenced, and we did not go to war.
#9
We've been at war these SOB'n mullahs and dinnerjacket since 1979. It's about time to end it and be done with it once and for all. They are a thorn in our side and the rest of the world's.
#10
They've been a thorn in our side but they are about to become a very real threat. The threat should be taken seriously and Paul is correct, sanctions are not serious, only provocative. What Paul gets wrong is that we should be preparing for serious action.
#11
Stupid statements like this are why Ron Paul will never be president ... or vice-president ... or a cabinet secretary ... or a deputy undersecretary ... or a second assistant intern to the deputy vice-undersecretary in charge of polishing the linoleum.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/01/2011 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#12
A pol who believes Iranians with nukes are no problem....
#13
James Delingpole commented elsewhere: Let's not forget how the [1979-1981] Iranian hostage siege finally ended: within moments of Ronald Reagan taking office the Iranians caved in. Was this because Reagan had promised Iran special concessions to sweeten the deal? Nope. Was it because Reagan promised just as Obama's chief administrator at NASA more less confessed the other day that the purpose of America's space administration would be from henceforward to spread peace and lurve throughout the Ummah? Nope.
Was it because the Iranians sensed in the Gipper the kind of "strong horse" leader with whom it would be foolish to mess? You bet.
#14
"Ron Paul is not for a small goovernnment: he is for a small America."
Word, JFM.
Just like Bambi.
Posted by: Barbara ||
12/01/2011 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Paul regularly appeared on Morton Downey's crackpot oriented show. He identified himself as a "Libertarian" and espoused laughable concepts of freedom, all of which encroached on the security of the majority. He is still a crackpot who deserves marginalization.
I don't want war with the ayatollahs; I want annihilation.
Posted by: Sonny Scourge of the Poles9835 ||
12/01/2011 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"Iran sanctions first step to war"
Promises, promises....
Posted by: Barbara ||
12/01/2011 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
