CNN
Kabul, Afghanistan -- A protest over the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base turned violent Sunday, leaving a protester dead and several U.S. service members and police wounded, officials said.
The violence in northern Kunduz province came a day after a gunman killed two U.S. military officers inside the highly secured Afghanistan Ministry of Interior. Protesters threw a hand grenade at the base, injuring seven U.S. military personnel believed to be Special Forces members, Hussaini said. The attack took place at Combat Outpost Fortitude, ISAF said.
Sixteen police were also injured in an attack the police chief's office, said Hussaini. Protesters used grenades, pistols, knives, sticks, and stones, he said. One protester was killed and three were injured in the demonstration in Kunduz, Hussaini said.
The incidents came after Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai called for calm Sunday. While the "emotions of our people" over the burned Qurans "are legitimate and valuable," Karzai said in a televised address, remaining calm would help stop "enemies of our peace and stability" from taking advantage of the situation and harming people and property.
At least 29 people have been killed and nearly 200 wounded in recent protests, Karzai said. Two U.S. soldiers were gunned down last week at a base in eastern Afghanistan by a man wearing an Afghan National Army uniform.
The man who shot two military officers Saturday at the interior ministry was a junior intelligence officer with ties to a Pakistani religious school, an Afghan counter-terrorism official said.
"We believe it was 100% linked to the Quran burning because of the religious background of this junior officer. He spent two months in a Pakistani madrassa," the official said.
The interior ministry confirmed that the gunman in Saturday's shooting is believed to be one of its employees, whose "whereabouts are unknown." Police "are making every effort to find him as soon as possible," the ministry said.
Karzai extended his condolences to the families of the American officers killed, but said he did not know who was responsible or what was the motivation. Karzai also repeated calls for the United States to prosecute those responsible for burning the Qurans.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN, "We are hoping that voices inside Afghanistan will join that of President Karzai and others in speaking out to try to calm the situation." "It is out of hand and it needs to stop," she said.
The protests began last week after reports emerged that NATO troops burned Qurans at Bagram Airfield. A military official said the materials burned were removed from a detainee center's library because they had "extremist inscriptions" on them and there was "an appearance that these documents were being used to facilitate extremist communications."
American officials, including President Barack Obama, have apologized and said the burning of the Qurans was an unintentional error. Muslims believe the Quran is the word of God, so holy that people should wash their hands before touching the sacred book.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage
NEW YORK TIMES
LORAIN, Ohio — It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage.
Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.
Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.
One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.
“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.
The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.
Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.
When a second child, with a new boyfriend, followed three years later — her birth control failed, she said — her boyfriend, a part-time house painter, was reluctant to wed.
Ms. Strader likes the idea of marriage; she keeps her parents’ wedding photo on her kitchen wall and says her boyfriend is a good father. But for now marriage is beyond her reach. “I’d like to do it, but I just don’t see it happening right now,” she said. “Most of my friends say it’s just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.”
LORAIN, Ohio — It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage.
Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.
Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.
One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.
“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.
The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.
Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.
When a second child, with a new boyfriend, followed three years later — her birth control failed, she said — her boyfriend, a part-time house painter, was reluctant to wed.
Ms. Strader likes the idea of marriage; she keeps her parents’ wedding photo on her kitchen wall and says her boyfriend is a good father. But for now marriage is beyond her reach. “I’d like to do it, but I just don’t see it happening right now,” she said. “Most of my friends say it’s just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.”
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Polls show Romney, Santorum tied nationally for Republicans
HUFFINGTON POST
WASHINGTON -- Five new national polls released on Monday or Tuesday all confirm that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has gained significant support in the wake of his victories in last week's caucuses and primaries and now runs roughly even with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among Republicans nationwide.
The latest national surveys add up to a consistent snapshot of the Republican race. When asked who they prefer as a nominee, Republicans divide almost evenly between Santorum and Romney, with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) running far behind.
Three of the new surveys, from CNN/ORC International, CBS News/New York Times, the and Pew Research Center, all show Santorum ahead of Romney by margins of 2 to 3 percentage points. The latest Gallup Daily tracking poll shows Romney leading by 2 points and a new Fairleigh Dickinson University survey shows both candidates running even.
Random sampling error accounts for much of the minor variation between the surveys. Since the nomination is decided by a series of statewide primaries and caucuses rather than a national primary, the critical finding is not the precise level of support for each candidate but that the Republican race has taken yet another dramatic turn.
Santorum's support has nearly doubled in the last two weeks (to 31.4 percent) putting him into a near tie with Romney (31.1 percent) followed by Gingrich (14.5 percent) and Paul (12.1 percent).
The question everyone is asking is whether the current snapshot will persist or whether Santorum, like a series of conservative "not-Romney" alternatives before him, will soon fade. The polling volatility is likely to continue, since the latest results confirm that Republicans have not yet come to a consensus on their preferred nominee.
WASHINGTON -- Five new national polls released on Monday or Tuesday all confirm that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has gained significant support in the wake of his victories in last week's caucuses and primaries and now runs roughly even with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among Republicans nationwide.
The latest national surveys add up to a consistent snapshot of the Republican race. When asked who they prefer as a nominee, Republicans divide almost evenly between Santorum and Romney, with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) running far behind.
Three of the new surveys, from CNN/ORC International, CBS News/New York Times, the and Pew Research Center, all show Santorum ahead of Romney by margins of 2 to 3 percentage points. The latest Gallup Daily tracking poll shows Romney leading by 2 points and a new Fairleigh Dickinson University survey shows both candidates running even.
Random sampling error accounts for much of the minor variation between the surveys. Since the nomination is decided by a series of statewide primaries and caucuses rather than a national primary, the critical finding is not the precise level of support for each candidate but that the Republican race has taken yet another dramatic turn.
Santorum's support has nearly doubled in the last two weeks (to 31.4 percent) putting him into a near tie with Romney (31.1 percent) followed by Gingrich (14.5 percent) and Paul (12.1 percent).
The question everyone is asking is whether the current snapshot will persist or whether Santorum, like a series of conservative "not-Romney" alternatives before him, will soon fade. The polling volatility is likely to continue, since the latest results confirm that Republicans have not yet come to a consensus on their preferred nominee.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Anoka-Hennepin School Board votes to replace gay-lesbian neutrality policy
STAR/TRIBUNE
Even as the Anoka-Hennepin school board voted Monday night to replace the controversial policy that required teachers to remain neutral on the topic of sexual orientation in the classroom, it was clear that divisions in the state's largest school district still run deep. The board voted 5-1 to replace the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy with one that emphasizes "respectful exchanges of views" during classroom discussions of sexual orientation and other contentious issues.
The situation has drawn widespread attention as part of an emotional nationwide discussion of how gay teens are treated. Some blamed the so-called neutrality policy for creating an atmosphere that tolerated persistent bullying of students who are gay or perceived as gay.
Although the speakers remained civil, it was apparent that disagreement is as deep as ever; 13 people spoke in favor of getting rid of the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy and 12 supported keeping it.
Those who favored the neutrality policy objected to opponents' characterization of their views. They said they worry that children who hold conservative Christian or moral beliefs will feel censored and shamed if they voice critical opinions. "How is a conservative student going to feel?" asked Tiffany Strabala, of Andover. "You saw what happened when we came out and voiced our concerns. We were considered closed-minded, bigoted, judgmental and hateful."
Others who opposed changing the policy reiterated their beliefs that homosexuality is a dangerous "lifestyle choice" and that sexuality education belongs in the home. They said scrapping the old policy would create an opening for "homosexual activists" to push an agenda in the classroom. "Even the [former policy] didn't stop self-righteous, progressive teachers from bringing homosexual propaganda into the classrooms," said Laurie Thompson, president of the Parents Action League, drawing gasps from some in the room.
On the other side, some who supported scrapping the neutrality policy praised the new one because it does not single out any one group. But many said they think it's overly cautious, expressing concerns that it could quash or distort open discourse on important issues.
"Will teachers be forced to give equal time and weight to both sides, not because the weight of evidence is equal, but because the Anoka-Hennepin community has deemed it contentious?" asked Dan Rebek of Coon Rapids.
Although district officials have said removing the policy was not connected to the lawsuit filed last summer on behalf of students who said complaints of persistent bullying based on sexual orientation were not adequately addressed, removal of the policy is key to the plaintiffs' demands.
Even as the Anoka-Hennepin school board voted Monday night to replace the controversial policy that required teachers to remain neutral on the topic of sexual orientation in the classroom, it was clear that divisions in the state's largest school district still run deep. The board voted 5-1 to replace the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy with one that emphasizes "respectful exchanges of views" during classroom discussions of sexual orientation and other contentious issues.
The situation has drawn widespread attention as part of an emotional nationwide discussion of how gay teens are treated. Some blamed the so-called neutrality policy for creating an atmosphere that tolerated persistent bullying of students who are gay or perceived as gay.
Although the speakers remained civil, it was apparent that disagreement is as deep as ever; 13 people spoke in favor of getting rid of the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy and 12 supported keeping it.
Those who favored the neutrality policy objected to opponents' characterization of their views. They said they worry that children who hold conservative Christian or moral beliefs will feel censored and shamed if they voice critical opinions. "How is a conservative student going to feel?" asked Tiffany Strabala, of Andover. "You saw what happened when we came out and voiced our concerns. We were considered closed-minded, bigoted, judgmental and hateful."
Others who opposed changing the policy reiterated their beliefs that homosexuality is a dangerous "lifestyle choice" and that sexuality education belongs in the home. They said scrapping the old policy would create an opening for "homosexual activists" to push an agenda in the classroom. "Even the [former policy] didn't stop self-righteous, progressive teachers from bringing homosexual propaganda into the classrooms," said Laurie Thompson, president of the Parents Action League, drawing gasps from some in the room.
On the other side, some who supported scrapping the neutrality policy praised the new one because it does not single out any one group. But many said they think it's overly cautious, expressing concerns that it could quash or distort open discourse on important issues.
"Will teachers be forced to give equal time and weight to both sides, not because the weight of evidence is equal, but because the Anoka-Hennepin community has deemed it contentious?" asked Dan Rebek of Coon Rapids.
Although district officials have said removing the policy was not connected to the lawsuit filed last summer on behalf of students who said complaints of persistent bullying based on sexual orientation were not adequately addressed, removal of the policy is key to the plaintiffs' demands.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Appeals court rejects California's ban on gay marriage
San Francisco (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled against California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, arguing the ban unconstitutionally singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state's Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment.
"Very soon, Proposition 8 will be gone forever," said Kristin Perry, one of two women who challenged the ban in federal courts along with a male same-sex couple. "Today marks the culmination of what has been a transformational year."
Supporters of Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote in 2008, said they were willing to take the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And a stay halting same-sex marriages remains in place as the appeals continue.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal foundation that backed Proposition 8, said it was not surprised that "this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage -- tried in San Francisco -- turned out this way." But it said it was confident the Supreme Court would uphold "the expressed will of the American people." "No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people," it said.
Nevertheless, supporters of same-sex marriages cheered the decision when it was announced in San Francisco on Tuesday morning. "For me, it's a beautiful day," same-sex marriage activist Billy Bradford said. "But it's a great day for the Constitution."
Perry and her partner, Sandra Stier, are raising twin boys who will be ready to attend college next year. One of the boys, Spencer Perry, said he lived "in a home with a lot of love," but added, "Proposition 8 has done a really, really good job of trying to tear that love apart."
Tuesday's ruling affirms a 2010 decision by a U.S. district judge in San Francisco. In the majority opinion, Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins noted that they were speaking only to Proposition 8, and that other states would have to decide the issue of marriage themselves.
"For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class," the opinion states.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state's Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment.
"Very soon, Proposition 8 will be gone forever," said Kristin Perry, one of two women who challenged the ban in federal courts along with a male same-sex couple. "Today marks the culmination of what has been a transformational year."
Supporters of Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote in 2008, said they were willing to take the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And a stay halting same-sex marriages remains in place as the appeals continue.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal foundation that backed Proposition 8, said it was not surprised that "this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage -- tried in San Francisco -- turned out this way." But it said it was confident the Supreme Court would uphold "the expressed will of the American people." "No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people," it said.
Nevertheless, supporters of same-sex marriages cheered the decision when it was announced in San Francisco on Tuesday morning. "For me, it's a beautiful day," same-sex marriage activist Billy Bradford said. "But it's a great day for the Constitution."
Perry and her partner, Sandra Stier, are raising twin boys who will be ready to attend college next year. One of the boys, Spencer Perry, said he lived "in a home with a lot of love," but added, "Proposition 8 has done a really, really good job of trying to tear that love apart."
Tuesday's ruling affirms a 2010 decision by a U.S. district judge in San Francisco. In the majority opinion, Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins noted that they were speaking only to Proposition 8, and that other states would have to decide the issue of marriage themselves.
"For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class," the opinion states.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Head-trauma lawsuits against NFL grow into hundreds
By David Ariosto
(CNN) -- A nasty collision during a kickoff in 1997 left Kevin Turner seeing stars. The former Philadelphia Eagles fullback, who spent eight seasons battering through defensive lines in the National Football League, said the hit left him wondering where he was. Still, the team's medical staff looked him over and eventually sent him back out to play, he said.
A little over a decade later, the former Eagle is battling the debilitating effects of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. He said his doctors have told him that "there's no cure, you're going to die within two to 10 years, and get your affairs in order." Since the diagnosis, Turner has lost most of the use of his hands and arms. He's also agreed to submit his brain to scientific study following his death.
Turner is one of hundreds of former NFL players and their families currently suing the league for alleged negligence, claiming that it didn't do enough to mitigate the risks despite what many say is an inherently dangerous sport.
Stars such as former quarterback Jim McMahon, as well as running backs Jamal Lewis and Dorsey Levens, have filed similar lawsuits in states across the country. Attorneys representing Lewis and Levens accuse the league of having used a "hand-picked committee of physicians" to misrepresent evidence of the effects of head trauma, particularly concussions. "We do believe the NFL knew and had that available information with them for many years now," said attorney Mike McGlamry.
The league denies the claims and released a statement saying it "has long made player safety a priority and continues to take steps to protect players and to advance the science and medical understanding of the management and treatment of concussions."
The league has in recent years also made strides to strengthen rules that govern on-the-field conduct while adding sideline medical staff -- unaffiliated with the teams -- to more independently evaluate injured players.
Critics, meanwhile, say the league should have made the changes years ago and have called for more protections. Part of the issue, noted a former Atlanta Falcons linebacker, is a sports culture that largely encourages behavior out-of-step with the recognized risks of head trauma. It's exacerbated when coaches, even at the high school level, say "'Oh, you just got your bell rung. Get back out there and play,'" noted Coy Wire. That attitude, he added, can contribute to the risks of long-term brain damage.
A recent study conducted at Boston University's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy found evidence of a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy -- a dementia-like brain disease -- had been found in the brains of 14 of 15 former NFL players. Their cases shared a common thread -- repeated concussions, sub-concussive blows to the head, or both, according to the study.
Many of those named in the recent claims, meanwhile, describe a range of common symptoms that include headaches, sleeplessness and dementia. But whether the league can be proven liable for alleged mistreatment of players, who often acknowledge the risks and likely also suffered head trauma during their high school and collegiate years, is expected to be the source of a drawn-out legal battle involving a growing number of plaintiffs.
Still, family and friends close to the players are often left to deal with the gritty aftermath of day-to-day living once the bright lights of prime time fades. Teresa Foley, the wife of former New York Jets quarterback Glenn Foley, who is named in the class-action lawsuit, said she'd like to organize a support group.
She says her husband, a 41-year-old New Jersey native selected in 1994 by the Jets, has faced bouts of depression and severe memory loss since his retirement from the league more than a decade ago. "I sent him to the supermarket a couple of months ago with a list of a few things," said Teresa Foley. "He went with the list. But he forgot what he had to get, and also forgot that he had a list."
The former quarterback returned home empty-handed.
(CNN) -- A nasty collision during a kickoff in 1997 left Kevin Turner seeing stars. The former Philadelphia Eagles fullback, who spent eight seasons battering through defensive lines in the National Football League, said the hit left him wondering where he was. Still, the team's medical staff looked him over and eventually sent him back out to play, he said.
A little over a decade later, the former Eagle is battling the debilitating effects of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. He said his doctors have told him that "there's no cure, you're going to die within two to 10 years, and get your affairs in order." Since the diagnosis, Turner has lost most of the use of his hands and arms. He's also agreed to submit his brain to scientific study following his death.
Turner is one of hundreds of former NFL players and their families currently suing the league for alleged negligence, claiming that it didn't do enough to mitigate the risks despite what many say is an inherently dangerous sport.
Stars such as former quarterback Jim McMahon, as well as running backs Jamal Lewis and Dorsey Levens, have filed similar lawsuits in states across the country. Attorneys representing Lewis and Levens accuse the league of having used a "hand-picked committee of physicians" to misrepresent evidence of the effects of head trauma, particularly concussions. "We do believe the NFL knew and had that available information with them for many years now," said attorney Mike McGlamry.
The league denies the claims and released a statement saying it "has long made player safety a priority and continues to take steps to protect players and to advance the science and medical understanding of the management and treatment of concussions."
The league has in recent years also made strides to strengthen rules that govern on-the-field conduct while adding sideline medical staff -- unaffiliated with the teams -- to more independently evaluate injured players.
Critics, meanwhile, say the league should have made the changes years ago and have called for more protections. Part of the issue, noted a former Atlanta Falcons linebacker, is a sports culture that largely encourages behavior out-of-step with the recognized risks of head trauma. It's exacerbated when coaches, even at the high school level, say "'Oh, you just got your bell rung. Get back out there and play,'" noted Coy Wire. That attitude, he added, can contribute to the risks of long-term brain damage.
A recent study conducted at Boston University's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy found evidence of a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy -- a dementia-like brain disease -- had been found in the brains of 14 of 15 former NFL players. Their cases shared a common thread -- repeated concussions, sub-concussive blows to the head, or both, according to the study.
Many of those named in the recent claims, meanwhile, describe a range of common symptoms that include headaches, sleeplessness and dementia. But whether the league can be proven liable for alleged mistreatment of players, who often acknowledge the risks and likely also suffered head trauma during their high school and collegiate years, is expected to be the source of a drawn-out legal battle involving a growing number of plaintiffs.
Still, family and friends close to the players are often left to deal with the gritty aftermath of day-to-day living once the bright lights of prime time fades. Teresa Foley, the wife of former New York Jets quarterback Glenn Foley, who is named in the class-action lawsuit, said she'd like to organize a support group.
She says her husband, a 41-year-old New Jersey native selected in 1994 by the Jets, has faced bouts of depression and severe memory loss since his retirement from the league more than a decade ago. "I sent him to the supermarket a couple of months ago with a list of a few things," said Teresa Foley. "He went with the list. But he forgot what he had to get, and also forgot that he had a list."
The former quarterback returned home empty-handed.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Minnesota takes its turn in Republican presidential race
STAR/TRIBUNE
Fresh from regaining front-runner status, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney squeezed in a Minnesota stop Wednesday to harness his new momentum into a strong showing in the state's caucuses next week.
"It's time for us to bring a new definition to hope," Romney told a cheering crowd in Eagan, a day after a commanding win in the Florida primary. "Hope should mean a good job and good paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker."
Romney is the second GOP presidential candidate to visit the state in three days, highlighting the newfound importance of Minnesota in what has been a bitter and ferociously contested race for the GOP presidential nomination. For years, the state's caucuses were lost in the national din, lumped in among more than a dozen states selecting their preferences for president on the same day.
This time, Minnesota has the potential to provide a boost to some candidates, particularly those who have fallen behind. "We used to be a footnote of a footnote," said David Sturrock, a GOP activist from Marshall and the former treasurer for the Minnesota Republican Party. "This year we will get national attention."
Political groups backing Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blitzed the airwaves in Florida, and there are reports that supporters of Romney and of former Sen. Rick Santorum are buying ads in Minnesota. Romney supporters anticipate another visit by him before Tuesday's caucuses. On Monday, Santorum touched down in the tiny town of Luverne, in the southwest corner of the state, speaking to a crowd of more than 400 for nearly 90 minutes. He too says he hopes to return to the state before the caucuses.
Meanwhile, Texas Rep. Ron Paul's campaign has quietly held regular recruiting meetings to build a formidable army that could pull off a caucus night upset. Paul has been trailing badly in the polls, but winning the state's preference poll would give him bragging rights and a chance at a sizable chunk of the state's 40 delegates. Minnesota GOP delegates will not be awarded on the basis of Tuesday's straw poll. "Our campaign is working hard at the grass-roots level in Minnesota," said Gary Howard, a Paul campaign spokesman. Minnesota, he said, is "a state that is often crucial to success in the general election."
Republicans expect only about 60,000 GOP voters to come out for the caucuses, a number small enough that it could make it easier for an organized grass-roots campaign like Paul's to have a strong finish, possibly even a win, several political watchers said.
Gingrich's campaign has not announced any Minnesota campaign swings.
Fresh from regaining front-runner status, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney squeezed in a Minnesota stop Wednesday to harness his new momentum into a strong showing in the state's caucuses next week.
"It's time for us to bring a new definition to hope," Romney told a cheering crowd in Eagan, a day after a commanding win in the Florida primary. "Hope should mean a good job and good paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker."
Romney is the second GOP presidential candidate to visit the state in three days, highlighting the newfound importance of Minnesota in what has been a bitter and ferociously contested race for the GOP presidential nomination. For years, the state's caucuses were lost in the national din, lumped in among more than a dozen states selecting their preferences for president on the same day.
This time, Minnesota has the potential to provide a boost to some candidates, particularly those who have fallen behind. "We used to be a footnote of a footnote," said David Sturrock, a GOP activist from Marshall and the former treasurer for the Minnesota Republican Party. "This year we will get national attention."
Political groups backing Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blitzed the airwaves in Florida, and there are reports that supporters of Romney and of former Sen. Rick Santorum are buying ads in Minnesota. Romney supporters anticipate another visit by him before Tuesday's caucuses. On Monday, Santorum touched down in the tiny town of Luverne, in the southwest corner of the state, speaking to a crowd of more than 400 for nearly 90 minutes. He too says he hopes to return to the state before the caucuses.
Meanwhile, Texas Rep. Ron Paul's campaign has quietly held regular recruiting meetings to build a formidable army that could pull off a caucus night upset. Paul has been trailing badly in the polls, but winning the state's preference poll would give him bragging rights and a chance at a sizable chunk of the state's 40 delegates. Minnesota GOP delegates will not be awarded on the basis of Tuesday's straw poll. "Our campaign is working hard at the grass-roots level in Minnesota," said Gary Howard, a Paul campaign spokesman. Minnesota, he said, is "a state that is often crucial to success in the general election."
Republicans expect only about 60,000 GOP voters to come out for the caucuses, a number small enough that it could make it easier for an organized grass-roots campaign like Paul's to have a strong finish, possibly even a win, several political watchers said.
Gingrich's campaign has not announced any Minnesota campaign swings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)