Obama & Romney's 2012 Election Armageddon: Electoral vs Popular Votes (Deja Vu' Bush & Gore!)

How Another Electoral Split Decision Could Divide America

In looking ahead toward the November election, Republican strategists should take proactive steps to avoid a damaging, dangerous conclusion to the presidential race and to prevent the very real chance that Mitt Romney will win the Electoral College even while losing the popular vote badly to Barack Obama.

The problem stems from the lopsided margins President Obama will surely pile up in a few uncontested states with big populations, including California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

Romney, meanwhile, will likely prevail by comparable margins in only relatively small states: Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Alabama, and Alaska.

The big states that offer Romney his most plausible path to Electoral College victory probably will be won by much smaller margins, leaving Obama with a clear popular-vote advantage.

All credible scenarios for a Romney victory with his “swing state” strategy begin with the presumptive GOP nominee holding all 22 states McCain carried, which are worth six additional electoral votes this time because of reapportionment.

From this Republican base, Romney needs to implement a three/two/one trifecta: winning back the three traditionally Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia) that Obama carried last time; seizing the two perennial battlegrounds that elected George W. Bush twice (Ohio and Florida); and then winning one more state—even a very small state—(New Hampshire is a likely candidate) to bring him the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

In order to accomplish this feat, Romney needs to add as few as 650,000 votes to McCain’s totals in just six decisive states to get an Electoral College victory with the bare minimum of 270 votes, even though Obama won in 2008 with a near-landslide margin of nearly 9 million votes in the popular total—18 times Al Gore’s popular-vote advantage over Bush.

A more likely outcome would give Romney wider margins of victory in swing states, while carrying a few other hotly contested states in the bargain. For instance, he could prevail in both Nevada and Iowa (where he developed strong local support in the caucuses) for a total of 282 electoral votes to Obama’s 256.

But even assuming that in each of the states mentioned above he won by 20,000 votes (bigger than Obama’s North Carolina margin last time, and large enough to avoid notorious squeakers like Florida’s 528-vote margin in 2000), Romney would still fall far short of a popular-vote victory.

Even without adding to his own vote totals (despite population growth and expansion of the voter rolls), the president would still pile up an advantage of at least 7 million votes—substantially more than Bill Clinton’s comfortable margin of 5 million against George H.W. Bush in 1992.

GOP partisans may blithely dismiss such calculations as meaningless since the Constitution unequivocally declares that the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes the next president, and the national tally of popular votes means nothing in the eyes of the law.

But only once before did a sitting president lose the White House despite winning the popular vote, and Grover Cleveland’s 1888 margin over rival Benjamin Harrison was slender—48.6 percent to 47.9 percent. By contrast, Mr. Obama could prevail by as much as the 7 percent margin that gave him victory last time, while still losing the Electoral College to Romney.

Grover Cleveland quietly vacated the White House without protest, confirming his reputation as a leader of unassailable integrity and profound humility. Would this happen in 2012? Would President Obama attempt to calm angry spirits of his partisans on Nov. 7 were the results to show a “split decision?”

It’s easy to imagine the national levels of rage, and impossible not to envision the president of the United States lending his voice to the angry chorus.

In the five weeks before Dec. 17, the day when electors formally assemble in their respective state capitals, the president could push electors to shift support to him—even if they defied state legislation requiring winner-take-all distribution of electoral votes to the victor in that state and ignored laws of 24 states threatening punishment to “faithless electors.”

The arguments would be fiery and, most likely, somewhat effective: insisting that basic fairness and democratic principle should trump any concern over the creaky, 19th-century relic known as the Electoral College.

Obama might even consider the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Between 2007 and 2011, eight deeply partisan Democratic states (Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and California) and the District of Columbia enacted legislation demanding that their electors cast their votes for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate won the state.

This provision would only take effect if enough states agreed to this compact to represent a majority of all electoral votes; in an emergency, Democrats might attempt to coerce the five wavering states they need to take action in time to make a difference.

Such action would raise a host of constitutional questions, but the Supreme Court might be unable to provide a final settlement of a disputed election as it did in 2000.

For one thing, Obama has already made contempt for the court a hallmark of his presidency—as he did when he used the State of the Union address to openly condemn the Citizens United decision on corporate spending for political advertising.

If the court strikes down key elements of the Affordable Care Act in June, the president will no doubt display additional outrage.

The element of race could give an especially dangerous edge to any protracted battle over a disputed election. How many Republicans would lose heart at the prospect of evicting the nation’s first black president on a “technicality” after a clear majority of his fellow citizens expressed support for renewing his White House lease?

What, then, could responsible politicians do to head off the most dire consequences of an inconclusive election?

For Republicans, the answer is easy: they must campaign vigorously in all large states, even those with no realistic possibility for statewide GOP victory.

Though the Romney campaign will naturally resist investing precious resources on lost-cause states with hugely expensive media markets (California, New York, and Illinois), they should overcome their reluctance.

With no super-heated statewide races in these population centers and no visible Republican drive for statewide victory, conservative voters might feel a natural inclination to stay home—allowing Obama to run up his margins.

If Romney can hold Obama’s margin to 55–45 in some of these heavily Democratic big states, he should win the popular vote; if, however, Democrats run up the score past 60–40, then Obama will win a popular-vote majority even if he loses the Electoral College.

Of course, the ideal way to avoid a national crisis over a disputed electoral outcome would be for Romney to win an unexpectedly comfortable nationwide victory, sweeping to Reagan-like success even in states assumed to be solidly Democratic.

Failing that sort of unanticipated landslide, the best policy would be to compete fiercely in every major population center while recognizing that in this unique election, even popular votes that seem theoretically irrelevant may play a role in averting catastrophe.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-Span, The Daily Beast, Youtube, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Takes His Income Equality, Middle Class Populist Message On The Road

Obama pushes campaign themes in Arizona and Iowa


President Barack Obama on Wednesday launched a three-day visit to five battleground states in the November election by pressing State of the Union themes of core American values and having the wealthy pay more taxes.

At an Iowa manufacturing plant that he said represented the kind of job creation needed for the economy, Obama repeatedly drew applause for the apparent central message of his re-election bid -- that the country needs to keep alive equal opportunity for all.

Americans aren't looking for a handout, the president said, but want the security of knowing they can provide for their families, send their kids to college and save for retirement.

"That's all most people want. Folks don't have unrealistic ambitions," he said. "They do believe that if they work hard, they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American dream. That's what this country's about. That's what you deserve."

Later, Obama spoke at a $5 billion factory under construction in Arizona that computer chip maker Intel says will be the most advanced high-volume semiconductor manufacturing plant in the world when completed in 2013.

Standing in front of what's billed as the world's largest land-based crane, Obama called the factory being built "an example of an America that's within our reach" that leads in technology and job creation through investment and innovation.

Obama later heads to Nevada to spend the night. He also will visit Michigan and Colorado on the trip that ends Friday. All five states visited are considered competitive and important to the president's re-election hopes.

In Iowa, Obama took a jab at Republican critics of his policies, saying they had "collective amnesia" by calling for deregulation and deeper tax cuts that Obama said helped cause the 2008 financial collapse and recession.

"They want to go back to the very same policies that got us into this -- the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for years," he said. "Their philosophy, what there is of it, seems to be pretty simple: We're better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and everybody can play by their own rules."

To an outburst of applause, Obama added: "I'm here to say they're wrong. We're not going to go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, and bad debt, and phony financial profits. That's not how America was built."

He repeated his call from the Tuesday night speech for a 30% tax rate on people earning more than $1 million a year, saying it was wrong for the wealthy to pay a lower rate than ordinary workers.

One of Obama's possible opponents in November, multimillionaire former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, revealed Tuesday he paid less than 15% in taxes last year on income derived mostly from investments.

"A quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households," Obama said, repeating his frequent anecdote that billionaire financier Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Responding to GOP criticism that his rhetoric and policies promote class warfare, Obama denied it.

"This is not class warfare. Asking a billionaire to pay as much as his secretary, that's just common sense," he said to applause.

The nation's mounting debt and deficits requires hard choices in spending government resources, he said.

"Do we want to keep investing in everything else -- education, medical research, our military, caring for our veterans, all of which are expensive -- or do we keep these tax cuts for folks that don't need them. Because we can't do both," Obama declared.

"I want to be very clear about this. We cannot do both. We have to choose."

The president also talked about changing tax laws for companies, such as the Conveyor Engineering & Manufacturing in Cedar Rapids where he spoke, to reward U.S. businesses that create jobs at home and end tax breaks for those that send jobs overseas.

"We've got to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas and reward companies like Conveyor that create jobs right here in the United States of America," Obama said. "If you're a company that wants to outsource jobs or do business around the world, that's your right.

It's a free market. But you shouldn't get a tax break for it."

Such tax benefits should go to companies bringing jobs back from overseas, he continued to applause, adding: "Manufacturers like Conveyor that stamp products with three proud words -- Made In America -- those are the folks who should be rewarded through our tax code."

Republicans criticized Obama's State of the Union address for what they called a failure to acknowledge the magnitude of the debt and deficit threat facing the country.

On the campaign trail in Florida on Wednesday, Romney and other GOP contenders accused Obama of misguided proposals that would worsen the economy for middle-class Americans.

Obama's speech revealed him to be "extraordinarily detached from reality," Romney said in Orlando.

"What he didn't say last night is that we are spending too much and borrowing too much and that America is on a collision course with debt, and that if we don't get off this course we could sink the American economy and go into calamity," Romney said. "We are, if you will, a virtual Titanic ... . The difference is, of course, with the Titanic they couldn't see the icebergs. In this case we can see the iceberg.

We see it, we are headed toward it, and he is saying, 'Full speed ahead.' "

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, said Obama's proposal for millionaires to pay a 30% tax rate "would be a disaster of the first order" if it meant doubling the current 15% capital gains tax.

Doing so "would lead to a dramatic decline in the stock market which would affect every pension fund in the United States," Gingrich said in Miami, adding it would also drive investment overseas and "would be the most anti-jobs single step he could take."

Asked Wednesday for details of the 30% tax plan, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters: "I'm not going to give you a schedule of how a broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have on capital gains or dividends."

Sources: CNN

Obama's Liberal Base Still Strong Despite Disappointment (Obama Or GOP?) OBAMA!!

Why the liberal base has so little leverage with Obama

Progressive elite disgruntlement with the administration of Barack Obama has been aired so many times during the last year that it is sometimes difficult to remember how deep and wide it has become. Like lights blinking off in house after house late at night, the number of liberal opinion-leaders willing to offer robust support for Obama’s policies and political strategy and tactics has steadily dwindled to the point where it appears as an occasional dull glimmer on the cable news shows and in the op-ed pages and the blogosphere.

But up until now, signs of any rank-and-file liberal Democratic "base" revolt against Obama have been few and far between. Perhaps that’s why a poll from CNN last week publicized as showing that liberals were the main source of his latest drop in approval ratings got more attention than a random survey normally captures.

There has certainly been a persistent and growing gap between elite and non-elite progressive attitudes towards the 44th president and his administration. Liberal elite defections from the Obama camp started early and have spread steadily.

First off the grid were those angered by TARP and the coddling of miscreant CEOs and other elements of the financial community. They were quickly followed by civil libertarians upset by the failure to reverse Bush policies on surveillance and treatment of terrorist suspects; foreign policy doves alleging broken promises on Iraq and Afghanistan; and economists pining for mega-stimulus.

The health reform debate produced another cohort of progressive dissenters baffled by the administration’s successive concessions to private health industry lobbies and Blue Dogs, while many environmentalists denounced a watered-down climate change bill before that entire effort was abandoned. In the months since the appalling 2010 midterm elections, progressives have largely deplored the president’s “cave” on expiration of the Bush tax cuts and, with ever-greater intensity, his advocacy of deficit reduction and “entitlement reform” as paramount national priorities.

Suffusing all these sources of discontent on the left has been a growing impatience with Obama’s steady commitment to bipartisanship in the face of Republican disrespect and obstruction; frustration over his apparent inability to articulate progressive values and goals in a way that mobilizes public opinion and gives hope to down-ballot Democrats; and contempt for suspected incompetence in such quotidian matters as executive and judicial appointments.

To say that liberal elites are "disappointed" with Obama is a great understatement; terms of moral opprobrium such as "betrayal" and "sellout" are now routinely tossed at the White House.

But so far, this profound unhappiness has failed to translate into any tangible intramural challenge to the administration, in a way that defies all precedent. During his first term Bill Clinton faced regular revolts from congressional Democrats, losing a majority of House Democrats on NAFTA, GATT and welfare reform.

Despite threats over the healthcare public option, Afghanistan funding, and most recently, administration offers to "reform" Medicare and Social Security, congressional Democrats have yet to bolt from Obama on any major legislation. LBJ and Carter attracted powerful left-bent primary challenges. Not so Obama, beyond vain fantasizing among the chattering classes.

A big part of the paper-tiger nature of progressive protests against Obama’s policies and politics has been the absence of any mass base for a serious revolt. Until such time as Democratic (or Democratic-leaning independent) liberal voters begin to share elite anger toward the incumbent, then all the thundering from thinkers and writers on the left (or even from staunch Progressive Caucus members in Congress) represents little more than a standing invitation to be "triangulated" by a White House seeking swing voter approbation.

And that’s why the headline accompanying the new CNN poll -- "Drop in liberal support pushes Obama approval rating down" -- is arousing fresh hopes of the left finally obtaining some political leverage over the administration at a critical moment in the budget/debt limit brouhaha.

But they are probably false hopes.

First of all, CNN’s numbers don’t quite back up the hype. The results note that Obama’s approval rating among self-described liberals is "only" 71 percent, "the lowest point of his presidency." CNN doesn’t provide a trend line for liberal approval ratings of Obama’s job performance, but Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll has him at 75 percent among liberals, five points higher than in mid-May and six points higher than in early December of 2010.

Among "liberal Democrats," probably a more reliable subcategory for capturing the sentiments of normally progressive voters, Gallup has Obama’s approval rating at 85 percent, roughly where it’s been on average throughout 2011. CNN also shows Obama’s approval rating among Democrats at "only" 80 percent, and his"renominate" number among Democrats at 77 percent, "relatively robust by historical standards but also down a bit since June." (The "historical standard" CNN supplies is a 1994 post-election poll showing Bill Clinton’s "renominate" number at 57 percent, which is indeed less robust than Obama’s).

Finally, CNN’s latest survey shows that fully 13 percent of the electorate disapproves of Obama’s job performance on grounds that he is "not liberal enough," up from nine percent in a spring survey.

But other survey findings (an all-time high percentage saying Obama’s not cooperating enough with congressional Republicans, and an all-time low approval rating for the direction offered by congressional Democratic leaders) call into question the idea that Obama’s in trouble because liberals are revolting against Obama for excessive cooperation with Republicans to gut Social Security and Medicare.

But the more important cautionary note to mention is that approval ratings are absolute, not comparative. Everything we know about Obama’s reelection strategy indicates that he hopes to make this a comparative rather than a "referendum" election, as he must unless economic conditions improve more than they are expected to prior to November 2012, or there is some incumbent-strengthening national security crisis.

This strategy might fail, as it did for Jimmy Carter in 1980, or it might succeed, as it (arguably) did for Harry Truman in 1948 and for semi-incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1988. A Republican Party that is on a remarkable ideological bender is certainly doing everything possible to cooperate.

But if a "comparative" strategy works at all, it will work most effectively with liberals, who are more acutely aware of the stakes for everything they care about -- from the survival of anything like a social safety net to the maintenance of constitutional guarantees on urgent priorities like abortion rights -- in an election that could give return Washington to united Republican control.

Liberal voters are precisely the least likely Democratic-leaning segment of the electorate to sit on their hands in 2012, no matter how they feel about Obama.

And that reality, I suspect, is contributing significantly to the anger and despair expressed by progressive elites about Obama. They may now regret his nomination in 2008, or even (on strategic grounds) his election.

But they know in their hearts they will be voting for him in 2012, and for the most part, speaking out for his re-election. Next time there is an open Democratic presidential nomination contest, the organized left will almost certain to make far greater ideological demands on candidates, and make a far less speculative choice of a favorite, than it did in 2008.

In the meantime, liberals will mostly have to bury a sense of cold fury that they have been "had" by a politician who in the course of less than three years has devolved from being the left’s great hope for a "transformative" presidency to a heresiarch over whom the Left has virtually no leverage.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Gallup Polls, MSNBC, Salon, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Tilt To Far Right Alienates His Left Wing Base

Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift

However the debt limit showdown ends, one thing is clear: under pressure from Congressional Republicans, President Obama has moved rightward on budget policy, deepening a rift within his party heading into the next election.

Entering a campaign that is shaping up as an epic clash over the parties’ divergent views on the size and role of the federal government, Republicans have changed the terms of the national debate. Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans’ language and in some cases their policies, while signaling a willingness to break with liberals on some issues.

That has some progressive members of Congress and liberal groups arguing that by not fighting for more stimulus spending, Mr. Obama could be left with an economy still producing so few jobs by Election Day that his re-election could be threatened. Besides turning off independents, Mr. Obama risks alienating Democratic voters already disappointed by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his failure to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end the Bush-era tax cuts and enact a government-run health insurance system.

“The activist liberal base will support Obama because they’re terrified of the right wing,” said Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the liberal group Campaign for America’s Future.

But he said, “I believe that the voting base of the Democratic Party — young people, single women, African-Americans, Latinos — are going to be so discouraged by this economy and so dismayed unless the president starts to champion a jobs program and take on the Republican Congress that the ability of labor to turn out its vote, the ability of activists to mobilize that vote, is going to be dramatically reduced.”

While Mr. Obama and Republicans have been unable to agree on a debt reduction plan for spending cuts and revenue increases to cut $4 trillion in the first decade, on Saturday they were negotiating a deal with fewer spending cuts that would ensure the government’s debt ceiling would be increased into 2013 to avoid another deadlock in the heat of campaign season.

No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years’ spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans.

To win approval of the essential increase in the nation’s $14.3 trillion borrowing ceiling, Mr. Obama sought more in deficit reduction than Republicans did, and with fewer changes to the entitlement programs, because he was willing to raise additional revenue starting in 2013 and they were not. And despite unemployment lingering at its highest level in decades, Mr. Obama has not fought this year for a big jobs program with billions of dollars for public-works projects, which liberals in his party have clamored for. Instead, he wants to extend a temporary payroll tax cut for everyone, since Republicans will support tax cuts, despite studies showing that spending programs are generally the more effective stimulus.

Even before last November’s election gave the Republicans control of the House, Mr. Obama had said he would pivot to deficit reduction after two years of stimulus measures intended first to rescue the economy and then to spur a recovery from the near collapse of the financial system. With Republicans’ gains in the midterm elections, that pivot became a lurch. Yet Congressional Republicans say Mr. Obama seeks a debt limit increase as “a blank check” to keep spending.

“The Republicans won, and they don’t know how to accept victory,” said Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

In his budget proposal in January, Mr. Obama declined to suggest a plan along the lines proposed by a majority of his bipartisan fiscal commission, which in December recommended $4 trillion in savings over 10 years through cuts in military and domestic programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and a tax code overhaul to lower rates while also raising more revenue.

Even though Mr. Obama was widely criticized, administration officials said at the time that to have embraced that approach then would have put him too far to the right — where he ultimately wanted to end up in any compromise with Republicans, not where he wanted to start.

But by this month, in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.

“He’s accommodated himself to the new reality in Washington,” said Tom Davis, a former House Republican leader from Virginia. “That’s what leaders do.”

But Congressional Democrats and liberal groups objected.

“The president’s proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare has the potential to sap the energy of the Democratic base — among older voters because of Medicare and Medicaid and younger voters because of the lack of jobs,” said Damon A. Silvers, policy director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “And second, all these fiscal austerity proposals on the table will make the economy worse.”

Mr. Obama’s situation has parallels with the mid-1990s, when President Bill Clinton shifted to the center after Republicans took Congress and battled them on deficit reduction and a welfare overhaul. Many Democrats were angered by his concessions, by a sense of being left out of negotiations and by a fear of alienating Democratic voters. Mr. Clinton was re-elected in 1996.

But Mr. Obama is likely to face the voters with a weaker economy and higher unemployment than during Mr. Clinton’s era. Still, his advisers express confidence that voters will reward Mr. Obama either for winning a bipartisan deal, if that were to happen, or for at least having a more balanced approach that does not remake Medicare and Medicaid and asks for more revenue from the wealthy. And they suggest another potential parallel with the Clinton years of divided government: that Republicans risk a voter backlash with their uncompromising stands.

“Democrats created Social Security and Medicare, and we have fought for decades against Republican attempts to end these programs,” said Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director. “And President Obama believes that now is the time for Democrats to be the ones to step up and save Social Security and Medicare.”

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. “Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they’re absolutely certain of — they’re going to hate these Republican candidates,” Mr. Mellman said. “So I’m not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”


Sources: CNN, NY Times

Casey Anthony Is Free But Her Troubles Have Just Begun (Video)

Casey Alleged "Child Murderer" Anthony, Was Released From Jail On July 17th After Serving 3 Years.

How Can She Be A "Child Murderer" If She Was Acquitted By A Jury You Ask?

An Acquittal Doesn't Mean Someone Is Innocent.

It Just Means That A Jury Decided For Whatever Reason To NOT Convict Them Of Murder Or Manslaughter.

In Casey Anthony's Situation Members Of The Jury ONLY Seem To Care About Getting The Trial Over With Quickly As Possible Because They Missed Their Families & To Make Money From Interviews About Her Trial.

Bunch Of Unsympathetic, Greedy Idiots!!

Nevertheless Even Though Casey Was Found "Not Guilty" Via The American Criminal Justice System, She Has In Fact Been Marked By Public Opinion Because Her Daughter's Blood Still Cries Out From The Grave For Vindication.

Before Its All Said & Done With A Life Sentence Is What Casey Anthony Will Wish, Perhaps Beg For.

"Jesus Loves The Little Children.

All The Children Of The World.

Red, Yellow, Black & White; They Are Precious In His Sight".

Jesus Loves The Little Children Of The World."

R.I.P. Caylee

Casey Anthony Released From Jail After Nearly Three Years


Casey Marie Anthony walked out of the Orange County Jail in Florida a free woman early Sunday morning. Anthony's release occurred exactly three years from the day that she made her first court appearance on multiple charges related to the disappearance of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Anthony, dressed in a bright pink polo shirt and jeans, walked out of the jail booking center with her attorney, Jose Baez, at about 12:10 a.m. When she walked out, Anthony mouthed "thank you" to one of the heavily armed guards that escorted her and her attorney to a dark SUV.

An armed contingent of law enforcement officers held back a large crowd that had gathered to watch Anthony's release. Some demonstrators waved placards while others shouted "Killer!" and "We hate you Casey!"

News helicopters briefly followed the SUV and several decoy vehicles as they left the courthouse but they quickly slipped from public view.

According to jail officials, Anthony had $537.68 on her when she was released.

"This release had an unusual amount of security so, therefore, in that sense, it would not be a normal release," Orange County Corrections Department spokesman Allen Moore said. "We have made every effort to not provide any special treatment for her. She's been treated like every other inmate."

Kelly Hall, an Orlando resident who has followed the case since Caylee was reported missing, was at the courthouse for Anthony's release.

"I was hoping to get some closure but after seeing her walk out I found myself more angry," Hall told The Huffington Post. "She had a smug look on her face and it was disgusting. This case has been emotionally damaging and I think it will take a long time for myself and everyone else who has followed it to heal."

There is speculation the SUV that carried Anthony and Baez headed for a local airport, but their destination is not yet known.

Twelve days ago, a jury of seven women and five men -- after hearing 33 days of testimony, 400 pieces of evidence and more than 90 witnesses -- found Anthony not guilty of killing her daughter.

The case against Anthony was mostly circumstantial, but as it unfolded, she was portrayed in the trial as a promiscuous, self-centered woman who became a cold-blooded killer. The motive, prosecutors alleged, was to allow her to live a carefree life without her daughter.

The state's theory was that a desperate Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then suffocated her with duct tape. Anthony then fabricated fantastic lies to cover up her deeds, the prosecutors said.

According to Baez, Casey Anthony and her father, George Anthony, were at home on June 16, 2008, when they noticed Caylee was missing. They began a frantic search, looking under beds and in the garage. Then George Anthony took the search outside to the above-ground pool, where they found a lifeless Caylee floating in the water, Baez said.

Caylee's remains were found in a wooded area near the Anthony family home in December 2008. The discovery was made roughly five months after she was reported missing.

After one day of deliberations, the jury sided with the defense and found Anthony guilty of four lesser counts of lying to police officers about the disappearance of her child -- lies which had launched one of the largest searches ever for a missing child.

The verdict ignited a cauldron of emotion in the courtroom and around the world. Angry protesters flocked to the courthouse steps, and dozens of death threats were made against Anthony and members of her family.

On July 7, Chief Judge Belvin Perry sentenced Anthony to four years for the misdemeanor counts, but he shortened her term because she had already served more than 1,000 days since being charged with first-degree murder.

Anthony, 25, faced a possible death sentence if she had been convicted of first-degree murder. Her acquittal has ensured that she can never again be tried for her daughter's murder because of the double jeopardy clause in the U.S. Constitution. Prosecutors are also prohibited from appealing her acquittal.

Two civil suits have been filed against Anthony. One was filed by a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, who claims Anthony damaged her reputation when, in July 2008, she told police a woman with her name had kidnapped her daughter. The kidnapping was later proven to be a total fabrication, and Gonzalez is now seeking $15,000 in damages.

Texas EquuSearch, the missing person search and recovery group that searched for Caylee, is also seeking more than $100,000 in a lawsuit to recoup funds it spent on the search efforts.

Anthony still owes investigative and court costs and possibly fees for her murder defense.

According to her attorneys, Anthony is destitute. However, any debt she acquires as a result of her cases will likely be recouped by the money she can earn now that she has been acquitted. It's no secret that Anthony stands to make a fortune from film and book rights, and the deals are already coming in. Last week, an independent TV production company offered her $1 million for an interview.

Will Anthony attempt to cash in on her acquittal? No one knows yet. It also remains unclear where she will stay. Her parents, George and Cindy Anthony, have declined multiple requests for comment, but a source close to the family has told The Huffington Post they have made arrangements for her to stay with an aunt in Texas.

The death of Caylee is a mystery and likely will remain so for eternity. Her mother, however, has freedom.


View Larger Map


Sources: AOL, Change.org, CNN, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, Google Maps

John Boehner's Sincere, Tearful 2010 Election Victory Speech

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

Decision 2010 Is Voter Referendum On Obama's Radical Policies: World Watches

Election 2010 Is Finally In The Hands Of Nation's Voters


The most expensive midterm elections in history finally take place Tuesday as voters decide who goes to Congress and governors' offices.

With all predictions, the election is considered a referendum on both the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama's first two years in office.

Polls indicate a dissatisfied electorate could clean house -- literally -- by tossing out the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and possibly doing the same in the Senate.

Losses by the governing party are common in the first mid-term election it faces, but the shift Tuesday could rival or match historic levels dating back decades.

Unemployment of 9.6 percent amid a slow recovery from economic recession has been the dominant issue, with Republicans accusing Obama and Democrats of pushing through expensive policies that have expanded government without solving the problem.

Obama has led Democrats in defending his record, saying steps such as the economic stimulus bill and auto industry bailout were necessary to prevent a depression, while health care reform and Wall Street reform will lay the foundation for sustainable future growth.

As voting day approached, voter anger appeared to tune out the Democratic arguments. Conservative groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funded attack ads that skewered increased spending under Obama and the health care reform bill he championed, while labor unions and traditional Democratic donors backed messaging that warned a GOP victory would bring back Republican deregulation and policies that caused the recession.

On the day before Election Day, phone service went out at Democratic and Republican field offices in New Hampshire officials from both parties said.

A spike in campaign robocalls may be the culprit, according to Comcast, one of the telephone services in the area.

"Comcast -- and we believe, other local phone carriers in New Hampshire and Massachusetts -- are experiencing severe call volumes on the evening before the election due to auto dialing activity that is generating a massive number of inbound political phone calls to our network," company spokesman Marc Goodman said Monday.

The long and bitter campaign season will cost more than $3.5 billion -- the most expensive non-presidential vote ever, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

With around 100 of the 435 House seats at stake considered "in play," or competitive, the anti-Democratic mood is predicted to result in big Republican gains.

On the Senate side, where 37 of the 100 seats are being contested, the majority will be decided by key races in Nevada, Washington and a few other states where Democratic incumbents face strong challenges.

Republicans need to win an additional 39 seats to claim the House majority, and 10 more Senate seats to overtake Democrats there.

A national poll released Monday showed the number of Americans who say things are going badly in the country -- 75 percent -- is higher than it has been on the eve of any midterm election since the question was first asked in the mid-1970s.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey also indicates that the economy remains, by far, the top issue on the minds of Americans. The economy ranked higher in the poll than all other major issues combined, including terrorism, health care, illegal immigrants and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition, the rise of the conservative Tea Party movement has added a new element to the election cycle, roiling Republican races by boosting little-known and inexperienced candidates to victory over mainstream figures in primaries across the country.

Tuesday's vote will show how many of the so-called Tea Party candidates can win in a general election, but no matter the final tally, the result is expected to shift the Republican agenda to the right.

That means little chance of compromise or bipartisan approaches on major issues, observers warn.

Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist who worked for the last Republican House speaker, Dennis Hastert, put it bluntly: "It's been a hostile atmosphere, but it will be hostile on nitroglycerin."

Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner is expected to be the new House speaker if the GOP wins control of the chamber. He already has signaled little appetite to negotiate with the White House or congressional Democrats, saying last week that "this is not a time for compromise."

Boehner and other conservatives say the top priorities must be spending cuts to try to balance the budget and job creation to spur the economy. However, they also advocate extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone at a cost of $4 trillion over the next decade.

In the Senate, legislative gridlock is likely if Republicans strengthen their current minority of 41 seats. Obama and Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of using obstruction tactics as a political tool, showing the distrust and animosity that already exists.

Democrats are also wary of a recent comment by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who told the National Journal, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

The first test of a new relationship will come in mid-November when Congress convenes a post-election lame-duck session to try to clear unfinished legislation before the newly elected Congress convenes in January. Among other issues, lawmakers must decide whether and how to extend Bush-era tax cuts.

Voters on Tuesday also will decide governors' races in 37 of the 50 states, with the outcome potentially having an influence on redistricting based on the results of the 2010 census.

Every 10 years, the states redraw House district lines to reflect population shifts. Some states gain more House seats due to population growth, while others lose seats due to declines.

In most cases, state legislatures draw the lines, and governors have the power to approve or veto the maps. Governors also can influence whether any loss or gain of seats in their state involves districts represented by Republicans or Democrats.

The list of states that will gain or lose seats is released in December. However, Election Data Services issued estimates based on preliminary census figures that indicated Texas will gain four seats, Florida will gain two, and Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington will each gain one.

The estimates also indicate Ohio and New York will lose two seats, and Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will each lose one.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Dissatisfied Blacks Defecting To GOP; Black Repubs Increasing

Black Hopefuls Pick This Year In G.O.P. Races



Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

The U.S. House has not had a Black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.

But now Black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.

Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that Blacks can get elected.

“I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me,” said Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida and is one of roughly five black candidates the party believes could win. “But we came back and we’re running and things are looking great.”

But interviews with many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama’s election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible — for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support — was not.

“There is no denying that one of the things that came out of the election of Obama was that you have a lot of African-Americans running in both parties now,” said Vernon Parker, who is running for an open seat in Arizona’s Third District. His competition in the Aug. 24 primary includes the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, Ben Quayle.

Princella Smith, who is running for an open seat in Arkansas, said she viewed the president’s victory through both the lens of history and partisan politics. “Aside from the fact that I disagree fundamentally with all his views, I am proud of my nation for proving that we have the ability to do something like that,” Ms. Smith said.

State and national party officials say that this year’s cast of Black Republicans is far more experienced than the more fringy players of yore, and include elected officials, former military personnel and candidates who have run before.

Mr. Parker is the mayor of Paradise Valley, Ariz. Ryan Frazier is a councilman in Aurora, Colo., one of four at-large members who represent the whole city. And Tim Scott is the only black Republican elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives since Reconstruction.

“These are not just people pulled out of the hole,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a black conservative group. That is “the nice thing about being on this side of history,” he said.

He added that the candidates might be helped by the presence of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who is black and ran for the Senate himself in 2006.

“Party affiliation is not a barrier to inspiration,” Mr. Steele said in an e-mail message. “Certainly, the president’s election was and remains an inspiration to many.”

But Democrats and other political experts express skepticism about black Republicans’ chances in November. “In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist who ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign and who is black. “And you didn’t see many of them win their elections.”

Tavis Smiley, a prominent black talk show host who has repeatedly criticized Republicans for not doing more to court black voters, said, “It’s worth remembering that the last time it was declared the ‘Year of the Black Republican,’ it fizzled out.”

In many ways, this subset of Republicans is latching on to the basic themes propelling most of their party’s campaigns this year — the call for smaller government, less spending and stronger national security — rather than building platforms around social conservatism.

“Things have evolved,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who is heavily involved in recruiting Republican candidates. “I think partly the level of hostility to Obama, Pelosi and Reid makes a lot of people pragmatically more open to a coalition from the standpoint of being a long-term majority party.”

Many of the candidates are trying to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, insisting that the racial dynamics of that movement have been overblown. Videos taken at some Tea Party rallies show some participants holding up signs with racially inflammatory language.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 25 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public.

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”

There is also some evidence that black voters rally around specific conservative causes. A case in point was a 2008 ballot initiative in California outlawing same-sex marriage that passed in large part because of support from black voters in Southern California.

Still, black Republicans face a double hurdle: black Democrats who are disinclined to back them in a general election, and incongruity with white Republicans, who sometimes do not welcome the blacks whom party officials claim to covet as new members.

This spring, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia was roundly attacked for not mentioning slavery in his Confederate History Month proclamation, which he later said was a “major omission.” Black candidates said these types of gaffes posed problems in drawing African-Americans to their party, but also underscored their need to be there.

“I think what the governor failed to do was to recognize the pain and the emotion that was really sparked by the institution of slavery,” said Mr. Frazier of Colorado. “As a Republican, I think I have a responsibility to continue to work within my party to avoid those types of barriers. The key for the Republican Party is to engage every community on the issues they care about and not act as if they don’t exist.”


View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, Google Maps

Andy Dulin & Charlotte City Council Members Take A Hint! Decision 2011

Dear Councilman Andy Dulin,

Here's a message from Voters for you and your Charlotte City Council co-horts.

I fully support Raises for City of Charlotte Employees NOT City Council Members.

Especially those employees earning lower salaries like our dedicated Police Officers & Street Crew workers.

Many Charlotte City employees are Minorities who work hard, long hours while often receiving little compensation.

In fact the City of Charlotte has a history of NOT wanting to pay them for O.T.

By the way aren't there several Charlotte Police Officers currently suing the City of Charlotte for warranted, Unpaid Over Time wages?

While I do give Charlotte City Council members kudos for using more Fiscally sound practices in managing their Budget than County staff, I'm also giving City Council members a thumbs down for not treating their employees fair and for hiring Murderers & Rapists.

And...

Another Thumbs down for giving City Manager Curt Walton & City Attorney Mac McCarley huge raises ($30,000+) last Fall when regular Charlotte City Employees had NOT received a Cost of Living increase in several years.

That's NOT cool!

Since many Charlotte Voters feel fleeced by this current council, I have a feeling many of you will NO longer be serving in Public Office after the next election in 2011.

You have to come harder Councilman Dulin by continuing to speak up for ALL Charlotte residents not just those who live in Charlotte's Wealthiest communities:

Dilworth, Fairview rd, Myers Park, Park rd, South Park, Queens rd., Third Ward, University

Last time I checked a lot of those people haven't seen a Property Tax Increase in 7 years, while Charlotte's Lower Income & Middle Class seem to experience a Property Tax Increase each year.

Something is definitely wrong with this picture don't you think?

In addition Charlotte's Lower Income & Middle Class seem to receive very little Protection from CMPD.

While I do admit Charlotte's Law Enforcement personnel work hard, the caveat is they are NOT working hard to keep everyone Safe, just Charlotte's Elite.

Voters all over this Nation are tired of a Divided System.

Haves vs. Have nots!

Perhaps Charlotte Leaders should visit Newark, New Jersey and Speak with highly respected, nationally known Mayor Corey Booker about his award-winning strategies.

His city (Newark) was totally Murder-Free last month and the Mainstream Media is knocking down his door.

Why?

Unlike Charlotte's scared, token Mayor Anthony Foxx (spawned from Mel Watt & Harvey Gantt), Corey Booker is a Bold, Visionary Black Mayor who's very EFFECTIVE and cares about ALL of his Constituents.

Just in case your wondering not all of Newark's residents are Low Income & Middle Class voters.

Andy I suggest You and your Arrogant, Clueless Charlotte City Council colleagues take a Hint.

We're tired and not going to take it anymore!

It's time for New Blood from the Mayor's seat on down.

See you at the Polls dude.

Regards,
Laurel







Charlotte City Council Finally Gives Delayed Cost Of Living Raises To Police & Regular City Employees


After proposing a number of budget cuts, the city of Charlotte Wednesday said it will have enough money to give its employees raises for the upcoming fiscal year.

The raise pool for general employees would be 2 percent if the City Council approves the budget. Police officers and firefighters would be eligible for a 2 percent cost-of-living increase and a 2.5 percent step increase, which is usually 5 percent. The raises would cost the city $6.1 million.

The proposal to bring back raises after a one-year absence comes after the city has proposed cutting money used for police overtime, streetlight installation and after-school programs.

It comes as Mecklenburg County is cutting tens of millions from its budget, forcing layoffs of library staff and possibly laying off more than 1,000 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools employees.

Budget director Ruffin Hall defended the raises Wednesday, noting that Charlotte and other N.C. cities are in better financial shape than N.C. counties. The decision to have raises was made after the city surveyed a number of private employers that are bringing back raises as the country begins to pull out of the recession.

He said the city has to remain competitive and doesn't want to lose its employees to the private sector.

"We have to focus on delivering our services," Hall said.

At the start of the budget process, the city faced a roughly $7.7 million shortfall out of a $500 million operating budget - less than 2 percent.

Last month, City Manager Curt Walton proposed a number of cuts, such as cutting unscheduled bulky item trash pickups, which would save $225,000. Residents could still set up an appointment to have items removed.

He has proposed closing the 311 call system from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. and moving those operators to the day shift, which would save $65,000. The city also might suspend installation of new streetlights for three years, which would save $235,000 in additional electricity costs.

Other proposed cuts include eliminating funding for POST - Partners in Out of School Time - which provides after-school programs for students at Quail Hollow and Albemarle middle schools. That would save $454,000 and affect 200 students, the city said.

The city has also proposed expanding the pay period for police officers from two weeks to four weeks, to give supervisors more time to give officers comp time instead of overtime. That would save roughly $1 million.

On Wednesday, Hall discussed additional cuts with the City Council.

One cut would reduce the 401(k) contribution for all city employees except police and fire from 3 percent to 2 percent. The city said it hopes to restore that reduction for fiscal year 2012. The 401(k) contribution for law enforcement officials would remain 5 percent, as mandated by state law.

The city proposed cutting or freezing 41 positions. Some of the positions include cutting 12 workers from the 311 Call Center, 11 from Solid Waste Services and eight police officers assigned to the Charlotte Area Transit System. Four positions would be cut in engineering and finance.

The city attorney's office will likely get a new attorney tasked with handling public records requests. Hall said the number and size of the requests - from the media and due to litigation - is taxing city staff.

City staff will make its final budget presentations in May. A public hearing will be May 24 and the city will make adjustments to the budget May 26. The council is scheduled to pass a budget June 7.


View Larger Map


Sources: Charmeck.org, City of Newark, Facebook, Fox News, McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Youtube, Google Maps