School of Evolutionary Astrology

visit the School of Evolutionary Astrology  web site

BIRTH CHART FOR MIT ROMNEY: AN ARCHETYPAL STUDY IN DUPLICITY

Started by Rad, Jan 15, 2012, 10:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rad

For those in America please read and absorb this healine....and what it actually means in terms of what is going on in your country  .. the nature of your corporate media.

Unlike the Corporate Media, Citizens Aren't Buying Romney's Debate Lies

By: Sarah Jones
October 6th, 2012

A new tool was applied to social media following the presidential debate, and it showed that public sentiment was Obama won on substance, whereas Romney appeared to win by lying. The ability of social media to spread the word about fact-checks has changed the game.

NBC used a tool called ForSight, used to gauge public opinion in new media, to conclude that by Friday there was a sustained social media backlash against the punditry calling the Denver presidential debate for Romney. The new meme was that if Romney "won", he did so by lying, whereas Obama had won on substance.

    The immediate consensus that Mitt Romney won Wednesday's presidential debate has eroded significantly as fact-checkers have weighed in and supporters of President Barack Obama have fought back, according to NBCPolitics' computer-assisted analysis of more than 1.3 million post-debate comments on social media.

    The analysis suggests that as debate over a news event continues unmediated over time, the impact of the conventional wisdom of journalists and partisan commentators can be mitigated"¦

    By Friday morning, the counterargument that Obama had actually won on substance had taken root, with online sentiment now favoring the president.

I am not presenting these revelations to argue that Obama won the debate. It was established by the media that Romney won the debate, even if this study - based upon the post mortem fact-checking that damaged Romney's "win" - says otherwise. Romney has also gotten a small bounce in post debate polls so far among undecideds.

However, to the point of the social media backlash, the debate bounce is not a shift in the electorate precisely for the reasons people were citing on social media; the public does not find Romney trustworthy or presidential. According to numbers from a Reuters/Ipsos survey released Saturday, the bounce is not a shift in the electorate, but a short term bounce. "We haven't seen additional gains from Romney. This suggests to me that this is more of a bounce than a permanent shift," Ipsos pollster Julia Clark concluded.

Furthermore, Obama gained ground post debate on matters of character and who understands the electorate more, even among voters who thought Romney "won" the debate. Obama is still more liked than Romney (53-29), and he still has a slim overall lead over Romney. Voters feel Obama has right values needed for a President by 43 to 37. Ironically given the narrative that came out of Denver's debate, Obama still leads 42-38 on who is "tough" enough to be President.

So, Romney "won" the debate but did nothing he needed to do in order to present himself as more presidential. Worse, our media gave a debate to the person who by all fact-checkers' accounts, lied his way through the entire debate to such an astonishing degree that there were times we did not know who was standing on that stage. This was not the Mitt Romney who has been campaigning for the past six years. Mitt Romney "won" by disavowing himself of Mitt Romney. How is that a real "win"? Perhaps he won the debate only to lose himself.

Not bothered in the least by Romney stabbing Republican ideology in the back in order to present himself as Obama lite during Denver's debate, the Romney camp were out with champagne and snarls the day after the debate - high on their first "win" in a long and rather embarrassing campaign season for them. Republicans took to the airwaves to gloat like frat boys, demonstrating the very reason why they should not be in charge of anything. Ambition happily sacrificed principles in the Romney camp.

If this is "winning", then we need to redefine the purpose of these debates. Ostensibly, they exist to inform the people. How exactly did Mitt Romney inform the people of his policy positions so that they were better equipped to vote their conscience? He misled them, if anything, and he seemed to only confirm voters' already dim opinions of his character. The media dropped the ball on this one, including the allegedly liberal media.

Things are so bad in our corporate media that we were told a liar won a debate for the Presidency because the other guy didn't hit him back hard enough. These folks are paid for their ability to see past the trees, even if they are the right height, and focus on more than political theater.

The debate is supposed to be about who is best suited to be President, not about who won the WWE show, unless the media is conceding that our presidential debates are nothing but entertainment not subject to rules. The Denver debate and the post debate coverage was an unmitigated fail.

Just like the trolled Town Halls of 2010, the media got punked by manic hysteria and distortions meant to distract from the very issues at hand. The media did nothing to clear the air. But citizens took to social media to point through the crazed haze, revealing the little man behind the curtain of lies.

Romney won the debate, but failed to achieve what should have been his biggest goals; to change public perception of him and to come off as presidential.

Rad


Highly Debatable: The Big Liar's Biggest Lies

October 5th, 2012 12:34 am Joe Conaso

"It's not easy to debate a liar," complained an email from one observer of the first presidential debate  - and there was no question about which candidate he meant. Prevarication, falsification, fabrication are all familiar tactics that have been employed by Mitt Romney without much consequence to him ever since he entered public life, thanks to the inviolable taboo in the mainstream media against calling out a liar (unless, of course, he lies about sex).

Yes, President Obama ought to have been better prepared for Romney's barrage of blather and bull. The Republican's own chief advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, had glibly described the "Etch-a-Sketch" strategy they would deploy in the general election, to make swing voters forget the "severe conservative" of the primaries. Romney executed that pivot on Wednesday night, but he could do so only by spouting literally dozens of provably fraudulent assertions - which various diligent fact-checkers proceeded to debunk.

Knowing that he is vulnerable on taxation and the budget for many reasons, including his own peculiar and secretive tax history, Romney made several contradictory claims regarding his economic plan. He has no plan to lavish $5 trillion in tax breaks on the wealthy. He won't cut taxes for the rich at all. He vowed to provide tax relief to the middle class and won't increase their tax burden. He swore that his tax cuts would not increase the deficit.

Finally, he said that with all of that, he would grow the economy enough to shrink and eventually eliminate the deficit - without raising taxes on anyone. And he claimed that there are several studies proving he can fulfill all of these conflicting promises - even though he refuses to provide any specific tax proposals beyond a broad tax cut.

There is no study proving that Romney can do what he promised - and among his lies is his description of editorials in Tthe Wall Street Journal as "studies" of his plan. The most complete and unrefuted study of his claims remains the Tax Policy Center's bipartisan report on the Romney plan, which shows that there is simply no way to pay for his $5 trillion, across-the-board tax cut without raising taxes on the middle class. None of the alternative studies he has cited proves otherwise - and some of them actually amass additional evidence that he is wrong.

Undoubtedly he knows all that. He knows that eliminating the estate tax, a mainstay of his plan, will benefit the rich enormously and almost nobody else.

He also knows that when he claims economic growth alone will erase the deficit, without raising taxes, he is inventing impossible numbers. As The National Memo's Howard Hill demonstrated yesterday, the assumptions behind his claims are ridiculous. For the numbers to work, he would have to create not 12 million jobs, as he promised to do by 2016, but 162 million - more than the total current U.S. workforce. Or else the jobs created would have to pay more than $443,000 per year on average - which is even less likely than Rafalca winning the dressage medal at the next Summer Olympics.

At the same time, Romney accused the president of increasing the federal debt by an amount that is "almost as much"¦as all prior presidents combined." This charge, which he leveled before, is patently false and by now Romney must  know it. The prior debt, mostly run up by George W. Bush and his Republican congressional cronies, stood above $10 trillion when Obama took office. The debt is now just over $16 trillion, mostly due to costs incurred by Bush and by Obama's successful effort to prevent a Depression.

Having essentially disavowed the health care reforms that were his sole significant achievement in his single term in elected office, the former Massachusetts Governor suddenly claimed ownership of Romneycare. Presumably, this will make him more appealing to swing voters, too. But he still wants to do away with Obamacare, except for the parts that are popular.

For this maneuver, he must misrepresent his own proposed federal health care overhaul. He says there will be no change to Medicare for current beneficiaries, but repealing the Affordable Care Act will deprive them of free preventive care, increase their costs for prescription drugs, and do irreparable harm to Medicaid, which provides assisted care for nine million destitute Medicare patients.

But Romney has been lying about the Affordable Care Act for years, according to his own former advisor Jonathan Gruber, the chief intellectual architect of Romneycare. Nearly a year ago, Gruber complained  that Romney's attempt to draw a sharp distinction between the Massachusetts legislation and Obamacare was phony. He told Capital New York in November 2011 that "they're the same fucking bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying."

Lying again? Indeed, the falsehoods flowed on every conceivable subject. Concerning energy, Romney claimed that "about half" of the renewable energy firms that received federal assistance under Obama administration programs went bankrupt - a claim that cannot be justified by any measure. Of the 28 firms that got federal loans or loan guarantees, three went under, representing under 11 percent - and less than 5 percent of the funds committed. (This assertion was so blatantly untrue that the Romney campaign withdrew it the next day.)

The examples cited above hardly exhaust the deep well of dishonesty in the Republican campaign. What Romney has done presents a fundamental challenge to the American political media. Will news outlets hold him accountable for baldly misleading voters? Are they capable of confronting his continuous mendacity with basic facts? Some have made a beginning, while others have scarcely tried. If that isn't their responsibility, then they no longer have any purpose at all.

Rad


Republicans Sell America's Sovereignty and Give in to a Foreign Corporation's Demands

By: RmuseOctober 8th, 2012         

As a sovereign nation, America's government has supremacy of authority to rule as dictated by the U.S. Constitution and is completely independent from outside forces. The Founding Fathers never intended for foreigners to influence the government or impose their will on Americans or politicians, but for the past two years, Republicans have acquiesced to a foreign corporation's demand they be given the authority to raise gas prices, endanger the water supply, and impede farmers right to produce crops to feed the nation. Now, Willard Romney has joined the fray and Americans should begin asking why Romney promises to allow a Canadian corporation to control land in America, and why they are funding his run for the White House.

It is obvious to many Americans that Romney and Republicans hate this government and its people, and in their drive to weaken America, they are promoting a Canadian corporation to assist in their efforts. It was revealed recently that a Canadian corporation contributed $1 million to put Willard Romney in the White House, and he supports another Canadian corporation's expedition to takeover Americans' lands and raise gas prices. At one point in America's history, it was illegal for foreigners to impact elections and influence the government, but that was before Republicans abandoned their duty to serve the Constitution and the American people.

The two Canadian corporations attempting to influence the government of the United States are TransCanada and investment management giant, Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited. Maybe Romney believes that as president, ceding control of Americans' private property to a Canadian oil corporation is acceptable because they have oil, and it is possible he accepted a million dollars from a Canadian investment firm because of his affinity for vulture capitalism, but whatever his logic, Romney and Republicans are traitors for giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the people.

The investment and insurance giant, Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., contributed $1 million to a Romney super-PAC in spite of the law that says that any foreign national is prohibited from "directly or indirectly" contributing money to influence US elections. The Canadian investment firm donated to Romney because "a victory by Gov. Romney in November would be beneficial and level the playing field against corporations in more favorable tax jurisdictions." Apparently, if the investment firm can buy Romney's assistance to change tax laws for a Canadian corporation, then an illegal million dollar donation is a small price to pay. Romney is notorious for using other people's money to increase his wealth, so accepting an illegal campaign contribution fits his penchant for corruption, however, it is Romney and Republican's aid to TransCanada Corporation that is impacting America's farmers, the water supply, and the price of gasoline.

TransCanada Corporation is the owner-operator of the Keystone XL pipeline that Romney promises to approve on his first day in office to supply oil to China. In a campaign speech in Michigan, Romney told supporters "I'll get us that oil from Canada we deserve," but he knows the oil is slated for export on the foreign market and that Americans will never see one drop; except when the pipeline ruptures. Romney, Paul Ryan, and Republicans lied to the American people that expediting construction of the pipeline from Canada to Texas will create jobs and provide a glut of gasoline for Americans, but TransCanada debunked job creation claims and guaranteed the pipeline will increase the price of gas at the pump by at least 15 cents per gallon if not more. The environmental impact will be substantially more costly though, but decimating America's natural resources has never been a concern for conservatives. For the record, the tar sand belongs to Canada and Speaker of the House John Boehner, and subsequently they have already contracted to export the refined gas to China. However, before the northern route has even been decided, TransCanada has taken over farmers' land throughout Texas and prompted local officials to protestors even on their own  land. Republicans trumpet personal freedom and decry intervention in private citizens' lives, but where oil, wealth, and power are involved, freedom rests in the hands of a Canadian corporation.

On Thursday, actress Daryl Hannah was arrested for protesting the Keystone XL pipeline in Texas, but real victim was a 78 year-old grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild, who was arrested with Hannah. A spokesman for the Canadian corporation said, "It is unfortunate Ms. Hannah and other out-of-state activists have chosen to break the law by illegally trespassing on private property," but the Texas grandmother was not an out-of-state activist; she owned the private property TransCanada claimed she was trespassing on. Fairchild is not alone in protecting her private property. Across Texas, and states where the pipeline is planned or already under construction, farmers are protesting KeystoneXL cutting through their land, and their common complaint is, "they're siting it across me," and not "across my land," because farmers "identify with their land like they identify with their own bodies."

It is common knowledge Romney is not concerned about the American people, and that his first allegiance is to corporations and Wall Street, but he is giving clear indications he will allow foreigners to dictate their policies that will affect this government and its people. His company, Bain Capital, invested in Chinese companies, Iran, and a firm that acknowledged its strategy was profiting from US companies outsourcing jobs, and it begs the question; does Romney intend to serve the American people or foreign corporations, or in the case of Israel, a foreign government?

The Romney campaign asserts President Obama is foreign to America, but they are projecting Romney and his devotion to serving foreigners. That his campaign accepted a million dollars from a Canadian investment firm, or that he promotes a Canadian company that is taking over Americans' land proves he is not devoted to America, but to whichever foreign entity supports his campaign. Romney pledged to give TransCanada free rein to build the Keystone pipeline, and it has already resulted in the arrest of a Texas grandmother and Native Americans for standing on their own land, and construction of the Northern portion of the pipeline assures that more American farmers will lose their property rights to a foreign corporation to enrich the oil industry that contributes heavily to Romney's campaign.

The American people should be mortified that when it comes to protecting Americans' freedom as private property owners, Romney's promise to approve the Keystone XL pipeline informs his intent of defending foreign entities; not Americans. In fact, if Romney believes a Canadian investment firm and tar sand corporation will increase his wealth and power, he will defer to them regardless if they arrest Americans on their own private property or raise the price of gas, and it defines him as the only foreigner running for president.

Rad

Really ? My God ....

Romney refuses to face kids on Nickelodeon after vow to defund Big Bird

By David Edwards
Monday, October 8, 2012 16:14 EDT

After recently promising to end funding for beloved Sesame Street character Big Bird, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is now refusing to take questions from children on a Nickelodeon special, Kids Pick the President: The Candidates.

Although both then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared on the special in 2008, only Obama has agreed to participate this year, the network said on Monday.

"By answering kids' questions directly, candidates show respect for kids," host Linda Ellerbee said. "We are disappointed that Mitt Romney wouldn't take the time to answer the questions, but are thrilled that President Obama participated in the special."

Deputy National Press Secretary Adam Fetcher told TMZ that Romney had decided to "play hookey" because he couldn't even handle questions from America's youth.

"Kids demand details, and I'm sure they want some answers on why Romney could increase their class sizes, eliminate their teacher's jobs, raise taxes on their families and slash funding for Big Bird," Fetcher quipped. ""˜The dog ate my homework' just doesn't cut it when you're running for President."

During a presidential debate last week Romney had told moderator Jim Lehrer, "I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I'm not gonna keep on spending money on things to borrow from China to pay for."

Obama, who recorded his Nickelodeon appearance on Monday, took questions from kids about gun control, the economy, immigration, marriage equality, bullying, obesity and his most embarrassing moment.

"I'm running into doors and desks all the time," the president said.

Nickelodeon's Kids Pick the President: The Candidates airs at 8 p.m. ET on Monday, Oct. 15. Kids will have a chance to vote online between Oct. 15 and Oct. 22.

Bradley J

Thanks for the continuous flow of information Rad.
Here's another great example of being two-faced...

Mitt Romney Abortion Stance Changes, As Candidate Says He Won't Push To Restrict Access

The Huffington Post  |  By Elise Foley

Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.

The Romney campaign walked back the remark within two hours of the Register posting its story. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

His statement could put him at odds with congressional Republicans who have made limiting abortion central to their messages. His own running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has introduced bills to restrict access to abortion. And the Republican Party platform toughened its anti-abortion stance earlier this year.

Both Romney and Ryan oppose abortion, but the presidential candidate supports exemptions while his running mate does not. Romney told the Register he will restrict abortion in one way, through an executive order banning U.S. foreign aid money to be used for abortions.

Romney has previously vowed to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, one of the most common ways in which Republicans have tried to restrict access to abortion, even though the organization is already banned from using taxpayer dollars to fund the procedure. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that," he said in March, referring to budget cuts he would make as president.

Romney said in September that he would prefer to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would oppose Roe v. Wade.

"I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution," he said at the time on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe V. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue."

Romney said Tuesday his legislation will be focused on jobs and education, when asked whether he would push for other bills on women's issues.

"Women are frequently asking about the massive amount of debt we're passing on to the next generation," he told the Register.

UPDATE: 7:45 p.m. -- The Democratic National Committee posted video later on Tuesday of Romney saying during a February interview that he would cut Planned Parenthood funding, block foreign aid from going to abortions and appoint Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Rad

Mitt Romney Calls the EPA 'Out of Control' For Wanting to Make Sure Our Drinking Water is Safe

By Heather

During the Mike Huckabee Republican Presidential Debate forum held on Fox this Saturday night, Mitt Romney was asked by moderator Scott Pruit whether heaven forbid his head of the EPA might not be that different from President Obama's choice to lead that agency.

Romney responded by throwing a whole lot of red meat to the GOP base with whether the federal government and the EPA ought to be allowed to regulate fracking on a national level and said it should be left to the states, because heaven forbid Romney might want to concern himself over whether fracking is polluting the drinking water around the country, as Pro Publica has documented here -- Fracking or on whether states are complying with the Clean Water Act with their fracking operations.

As Think Progress has also noted -- Bringing Fracking to the Surface: More Scrutiny Needed on Natural Gas Development -- there are a whole lot more concerns that need to be examined before we just allow these drilling operations to go on without more scrutiny.

I would assume Romney is more concerned about which of those companies are contributing to his political campaign.

Rough transcript below the fold from this Saturday's "forum."

    PRUITT: Well Governor, you've traveled Oklahoma, you know that Oklahoma is a leader, in energy from oil and gas to coal to wind. So when energy CEO's tell me that your EPA, or your EPA administrator may not be much different than the president's now, what do you say to that?

    ROMNEY: Well, they don't know what I would do if I were the president of the United States. You know, one of my good friends is Mike Leavitt who was the EPA administrator under George W. Bush and I've asked some of the oil and gas company executives, what was it like under Mike Leavitt and they said it was a whole lot better than it is today.

    I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal, nuclear... there's a real effort on the part of some in the president's party that don't like the American enterprise system and are trying to find a way to do everything they can to impede the growth of our economy and our energy independence.

    And I look at the effort on the EPA for instance to step in the way of fracking and eliminate the potential in some states to have our access to natural gas and to oil and say look, this is all an effort to just say let's go solar and wind and let's raise the cost of energy dramatically.

    That's in my view, it's just entirely opposite of the view that we need to have a federal government that sees its job as helping the private sector grow and thrive and add jobs.

    PRUITT: Well Governor, you've traveled Oklahoma, you know that Oklahoma is a leader, in energy from oil and gas to coal to wind. So when energy CEO's tell me that your EPA, or your EPA administrator may not be much different than the president's now, what do you say to that?

    ROMNEY: Well, they don't know what I would do if I were the president of the United States. You know, one of my good friends is Mike Leavitt who was the EPA administrator under George W. Bush and I've asked some of the oil and gas company executives, what was it like under Mike Leavitt and they said it was a whole lot better than it is today.

    I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal, nuclear... there's a real effort on the part of some in the president's party that don't like the American enterprise system and are trying to find a way to do everything they can to impede the growth of our economy and our energy independence.

    And I look at the effort on the EPA for instance to step in the way of fracking and eliminate the potential in some states to have our access to natural gas and to oil and say look, this is all an effort to just say let's go solar and wind and let's raise the cost of energy dramatically.

    That's in my view, it's just entirely opposite of the view that we need to have a federal government that sees its job as helping the private sector grow and thrive and add jobs.

    PRUITT: Well Governor, you mentioned hydraulic fracturing and you know that that's revolutionary now with the natural gas industry as far as extracting natural gas. The states have promise in that area right now on the regulation standpoint. The current EPA administrator is marching toward having the federal government oversee the hydraulic fracturing. Would you put a stop to that?

    ROMNEY: Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head. They, I think the EPA and those extreme voices in the environmental community and in the President's own party are just frustrated beyond belief that the states have the regulatory authority over fracking. And right now I guess it's something close to seventy percent of the oil wells in this country that have been tracked, so states have been managing this and managed it well.

    But the EPA wants to be able to get in and grab more power and basically try and move the whole economy away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and push it into the renewables.

    Look, we all like the renewables. But renewables alone are not going to power this economy. And yeah, I would, among other things, I would get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks.

    Look, that was not a pollutant within the meeting of the legislation that authorized the EPA. It is of all the agencies in Washington, it is the one most being used by this President to try and hold down and crush and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector.


Rad

October 10, 2012 11:00 AM

Slain Former SEAL Used in Stump Speech Thought Romney Was 'Pathetic': Friend

By David

The friend of a former Navy SEAL who was recently killed during attacks in Libya says that his friend "would definitely not approve" of Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney invoking his name to score political points.

Over the past week, Romney has been recalling a chance meeting with former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty years ago to get an edge on President Barack Obama after attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of the veteran, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.

The former Massachusetts governor appeared to get choked up on Tuesday as he told a crowd in Iowa that he had met Doherty when he mistakenly attended the wrong neighborhood party.

"We had a lot of things in common," Romney said. "You can imagine how I felt when I found out that he was one of the two former Navy SEALs killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11th."

But Elf Ellefsen, a friend of Doherty's, said that the former SEAL's recollection of Romney was not as favorable.

"He said it was very comical," Ellefsen told Ron & Don radio show producer Libby Denkmann. "Mitt Romney approached him ultimately four times, using this private gathering as a political venture to further his image. He kept introducing himself as Mitt Romney, a political figure. The same introduction, the same opening line. Glen believed it to be very insincere and stale."

"He said it was pathetic and comical to have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen's face."


Although Doherty was a member of the advisory board of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), Ellefsen said that he was non-political and "would not approve" Romney using his name.

"Whether it be Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, it doesn't make a difference," Ellefsen explained. "Because this guy is using our great friend, our humble, and honorable great friend... who is truly larger than life... He has become part of the soapbox routine for politics in a presidential race."

"Honestly it does make me sick. Glen would definitely not approve of it. He probably wouldn't do much about it. He probably wouldn't say a whole lot about it. I think Glen would feel, more than anything, almost embarrassed for Romney. I think he would feel pity for him."

Speaking to WHDH, Doherty's mother also called on the GOP hopeful to stop using her son's name on the campaign trail.

"I don't trust Romney," Barbara Doherty told the station. "He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama."

Update (2:45 p.m. ET): After Romney told the same story about Glen Doherty again on Wednesday, his campaign promised that the former Massachusetts governor would not mention the slain former SEAL in campaign speeches again.

**************

Mother and Friend are Sickened by Romney's use of Slain SEAL for Political Gain

By: Sarah JonesOctober 10th, 2012

The mother of slain Navy SEAL Glen Doherty is not happy to hear Mitt Romney using her dead son for political gain. She told 7News of Boston, "I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama."

You might have thought Romney's callous, bizarre presser about the attacks was bad enough, but Mitt Romney wasn't done politicizing the deaths of four Americans in the September 11 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi. Needing to humanize himself after his 47% comments, the Romney team found a new way to endear Romney on the stump. He could tell a story about Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, whom he had once met at a Christmas Party.

You have probably saw a clip of Romney saying this in Van Meter, Iowa because he showed emotion and the press was entranced. Speaking with fond emotion of Doherty and their meeting, Romney said, "You can imagine how I felt when I found out that he was one of the two former Navy SEALS killed in Benghazi on September 11th."

Except that is not how one of Glen Doherty's close friends of twenty years remembers Doherty's chance meeting with Romney in an interview with MyNorthwest. According to Doherty's friend Elf Ellefsen, Romney introduced himself to Doehrty four times during the same party, not remembering that he had already met Glen. Doherty called it "pathetic and comical". Each time, Romney introduced himself "robotically" as "Mitt Romney, political figure." Glen believed it to be very "insincere and stale."

    Elf said it made him sick to hear Romney using his friend Glen on the stump. "Whether it be Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, it doesn't make a difference. Because this guy is using our great friend, our humble, and honorable great friend"¦who is truly larger than life"¦He has become part of the soapbox routine for politics in a presidential race."

Reporter Libby Denkmann asked Ellefsen "what he thought of his friend's story being used on the political stump", to which Ellefsen replied, "Honestly it does make me sick. Glen would definitely not approve of it"¦ I think Glen would feel, more than anything, almost embarrassed for Romney. I think he would feel pity for him."

Glen Doherty's mother and close friend do not appreciate Romney using their loved one to score cheap points on the trail. Glen's mother is specifically appalled to see Romney using her son to hurt President Obama, when Glen fought for freedom for all. Glen's friend Elf says it makes him sick, and that his friend found Romney pathetic and comical.

It doesn't get much more cynical than using someone's death for your own political gain, especially when that person would not have approved of your campaign or your tactics, and even worse, when you didn't even remember meeting him the first three times you introduced yourself to him. Romney used the story again on the trail today.

Update 2:30PM: The Romney campaign aide Kevin Madden told Buzzfeed that they will stop using the Glen Doherty story on the campaign trail, though Romney was allegedly "inspired" by meeting the man he forgot three times in a row.

Rad


Romney Camp to Donor Accused of Racketeering, "˜We get a lot of charges, this will go away'

By: Sarah JonesOctober 10th, 2012

Remember Mr. Murray, the coal mine owner who made his workers lose pay to stand with Mitt Romney at a rally in Ohio? CREW has filed a complaint with the FEC and Ohio Democrats separately filed a letter with allegations of "extortion, money laundering, racketeering" against Murray Energy Corporation, the Murray Energy Corporation PAC, and the company's Chairman, President, and CEO Robert E. Murray.

When a distraught Mr. Murray contacted the Romney campaign, he says he was told not to worry about it because "˜We get a lot of charges, this will go away."

These are not words the Romney campaign would want publicized.

The CREW complaint alleges that Mr. Murray of Murray Energy Corporation threatened employees with reprisals, including the loss of their jobs, to coerce them to make contributions to the company's PAC.

CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated, "It is outrageous for a business owner to abuse his power to force his employees to support a political candidate. Whether coercing company executives to make campaign contributions or insisting coal miners take time off without pay so that a candidate can stage pretty pictures - it is all illegal."

Furthermore, "The complaint also alleges that the company reimbursed employees for contributions to the PAC by giving them monthly bonuses personally approved by Mr. Murray. Campaign finance law prohibits corporate PACs from using coercion to extort contributions from company employees and prohibits companies from using corporate funds to reimburse employees for contributions to a company PAC."

These are serious allegations of campaign finance fraud, a federal crime. This is the very definition of racketeering and money laundering. Tom DeLay got convicted for engaging in similar activities.

Mr. Murray apparently likes to pressure his employees to vote and contribute to Republicans. Two of his employees told The New Republic in an article published on October 4th that they felt "coerced" by Mr. Murray. He sends emails inviting them to expensive several thousand dollar fund-raising dinners and invites them to automatically contribute to his PAC via their paychecks. When they don't show up, interoffice memos show that Mr. Murray keeps tabs on them, asking why they can't give 3 hours.

In spite of the fact that coal jobs are at a 15 year high, Mr. Murray warns his employees that an Obama win means no jobs for them. What Mr. Murray really means is that an Obama win means he will have to live up to safety regulations that would benefit his employees and the surrounding community.

The Romney campaign has been making a big show of Mitt's alleged concern over the middle class workers of America, but he's mum on the abuse heaped upon Mr. Murray's employees. Not only was Romney aware that he , but his campaign is aware that serious allegations have been made against Mr. Murray for threatening his employees with their jobs if they didn't contribute to Republican candidates. If that isn't enough to make Romney do the right thing, allegations that Murray is reimbursing employees who donate via "bonuses" should be an alarm bell that a wise candidate would distance himself from.

Instead, the Romney campaign tells Mr. Murray, "They said, "˜We get a lot of charges, this will go away.'" According to the Romney campaign, they get a lot of charges of racketeering, extortion and money laundering but they all go away. In this case, there are internal memos and documents that substantiate the employees claims against Mr. Murray. If indeed somehow this "goes away", it won't speak well of our justice system or of the Romney campaign, which hasn't yet said that they will stop accepting donations from Murray's PAC.

According to the Post Gazette, Mr. Murray sees himself as "Appalachia's version of the deep-pocketed Koch brothers."

Rad


GOP Congressman: Romney Tax Plan Follows The Bush "˜Recipe'

By Travis Waldron posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Oct 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm

The tax plan proposed by Mitt Romney, which he says will avoid adding to the debt and won't cut taxes for the rich, will work exactly the way the 2003 high-income Bush tax cuts worked, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) said during an appearance on CNN on Thursday. Romney has faced criticism over how his tax plan will provide a 20 percent, across-the-board tax cut without adding to the debt or raising taxes on the middle class. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan analyst, recently found that Romney's plan as outlined is mathematically impossible.

But Hensarling has confidence that it will work, because the Republican Party has tried this before. In fact, Hensarling said, Romney's tax plan will work just because it followed the "recipe" outlined by earlier GOP-led tax cuts, including the 2003 Bush tax cuts:

    HENSARLING: This is the tax plan: fairer, flatter, simpler, more competitive tax code. We broaden the base by getting rid of a lot of these special interest deductions, exclusions - by one estimate, one-third of the tax code is what is known as tax expenditures.

    HOST: Why couldn't Paul Ryan explain that 11 days ago?

    HENSARLING: My guess is he could have had he had time. But we did this in '03, it was done in the Reagan administration, it was done under President Kennedy under JFK, and guess what: when you follow this recipe, you get more jobs, more economic growth, and more tax revenue.

Since their passage, the Bush tax cuts have been a major driver of the nation's increased debt and deficits. Without the Bush tax cuts, in fact, the nation's debt would be at sustainable levels.

Even worse, the Bush tax cuts, which the Romney plan maintains before cutting taxes even deeper, were heavily skewed toward the rich and failed to lead to the economic and job growth Republicans promised. The decade following was one of the worst on record for economic, job, and income growth.

Hensarling is correct: the Romney tax plan certainly follows the Bush recipe. That recipe, though, is one that leads to fewer jobs, slower economic growth, and even bigger debts and deficits.

Rad

The "˜Moderate Mitt' Myth

Published: October 12, 2012
NYT   

The way a presidential candidate campaigns for office matters to the country. A campaign should demonstrate seriousness of purpose and a set of core beliefs, and it should signal to voters whether a candidate shows trustworthiness and judgment. Those things don't seem to matter to Mitt Romney.

From the beginning of his run for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney has offered to transfigure himself into any shape desired by an audience in order to achieve power. In front of massed crowds or on television, he can sound sunny and inclusive, radiating a feel-good centrism. His "severely conservative" policies and disdain for much of the country are reserved for partisans, donors and the harsh ideologues who clutter his party's base. This polarity is often described as "flip-flopping," but the word is too mild to describe opposing positions that are simultaneously held.

The best way to judge candidates is not by the popular way they describe their plans near the end of a campaign; it is by the most divisive presentations of themselves earlier on. A candidate's political calculations when fewer people are watching is likely to say far more about character than poll-tested pleasantries in the spotlight.

That's what is disingenuous about the "Moderate Mitt" in recent speeches and the first presidential debate. He hasn't abandoned or flip-flopped from the severe positions that won him the Republican nomination; they remain at the core of his campaign, on his Web site and in his position papers, and they occasionally slip out in unguarded moments. All he's doing is slapping whitewash on his platform. The immoderation of his policies, used to win favor with a hard-right party, cannot be disguised.

This week, for example, in the swing state of Iowa, Mr. Romney tried to cover up his strident anti-abortion agenda. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told The Des Moines Register's editorial board. But that carefully worded statement was designed to mislead, because the threat to women's rights doesn't necessarily come from legislation. He would cut financing for Planned Parenthood, and he has said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint justices who would do so.

And, though he has conveniently forgotten, he does support anti-abortion legislation - what he called in a 2011 essay the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to ban abortion when a fetus can feel pain. In 2007, he said he'd sign a bill prohibiting all abortions. He has also tried to paper over his positions on his $5 trillion tax cut, pretending it would be cost-free, and he now says he wants to cover pre-existing health conditions, though his plan does so only for those who have insurance coverage.

At last week's debate, Mr. Romney presented himself as a bipartisan leader able to work with Democrats. But that's not how Massachusetts Democrats remember his tenure as governor, as Michael Wines of The Times reported last week. He ignored or insulted Democrats and failed to achieve most of his big-ticket proposals, like reform of the Civil Service and pension systems. His decision to support a universal health care system in 2006, long advocated by Democrats, was seen at the time as a purely political calculation, at least until Republicans rejected the idea in 2009 when President Obama proposed it.

There isn't really a Moderate Mitt; what is on display now is better described as Convenient Mitt. Anyone willing to advocate extremism to raise money and win primaries is likely to do the same to stay in office.

************

October 5, 2012

Romney Claims of Bipartisanship as Governor Face Challenge

By MICHAEL WINES
NYT

BOSTON - He came into office with a mandate to shake things up, an agenda laden with civics-book reforms and a raging fiscal crisis that threatened to torpedo both. He sparred with a hostile legislature and suffered a humiliating setback in the midterm elections. As four years drew to a close, his legacy was blotted by anemic job growth, sagging political popularity and - except for a landmark health care overhaul bill - a record of accomplishment that disappointed many.

That could be the Barack Obama that Mitt Romney depicted in Wednesday's presidential debate as an ineffective and overly partisan leader. But it could also be Mitt Romney, who boasted of a stellar record as Massachusetts governor, running a state dominated by the political opposition.

Mr. Romney did score some successes beyond his health care legislation, notably joining a Democratic legislature to cut a deficit-ridden budget by $1.6 billion and revamping a troubled school building fund. Some outside experts and former aides say his administration excelled at the sorts of nuts-and-bolts efficiencies that make bureaucracies run better, like streamlining permit approvals and modernizing jobs programs.

As a Republican governor whose legislature was 87 percent Democratic, Mr. Romney said in Wednesday's debate, "I figured out from Day 1 I had to get along, and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done." The result, he said, was that "we drove our schools to be No. 1 in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times."

But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.

The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact. A wholesale restructuring of state government was dead on arrival in the legislature; an ambitious overhaul of the state university system was stillborn; a consolidation of transportation fiefs never took place.

Mr. Romney lobbied successfully to block changes in the state's much-admired charter school program, but his own education reforms went mostly unrealized. His promise to lure new business and create jobs in a state that had been staggered by the collapse of the 2000 dot-com boom never quite bore fruit; unemployment dropped less than a percentage point during his four years, but for most of that time, much of the decline was attributed to the fact that any new jobs were being absorbed by a shrinking work force.

Mr. Romney won lawmakers' consent to streamline a tangled health and human services bureaucracy, but the savings amounted to but $7 million a year. He entered office considering an eight-state compact to battle climate change, but left office outside the consortium, saying it cost too much.

"He put on the table in his inaugural address, and then in his budget, a series of proposed reforms like civil service reform, pension reform - going right to the heart of the lion's den," Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said in an interview. But excepting health care, "he never followed up. There was a handful of successes, but there was never a full-blown or focused program in the sense of saying, "˜Here's our vision.' "

Mr. Romney's former aides vigorously disagree.

  "That's an overwrought type of critique," said Timothy Murphy, the health and human services secretary under Mr. Romney. "If you take a look at the things the governor set out to do, we accomplished a lot. The budgets were more than balanced - we generated surpluses."

And, he said, "We did pass the most consequential piece of health care legislation in this state in 25 years."

Mr. Romney was pushing on an open door on the 2006 initiative - Democrats had long dreamed of providing health coverage to almost every resident.

Jane Edmonds, who headed the state's Labor and Workforce Development agency, recounted a meeting at the start of Mr. Romney's term in which he handed out a list of campaign promises to his staff and ordered them carried out within four years.

"My opinion is that he delivered on almost all those promises," she said. "We had 8 or 10 of them and we carried them all out."

Some of Mr. Romney's harshest critics concede his competence and his grasp of Massachusetts' problems and needs. Many of the initiatives he took into office were arguably nonpartisan; he brought to the job the same gimlet-eyed scrutiny of costs and revenues that he employed as an investment manager to spot potentially profitable companies.

But in contrast to his statements in the debate, many say, Mr. Romney neither mastered the art of reaching across the aisle nor achieved unusual success as governor. To the contrary, they say, his relations with Democrats could be acrimonious, and his ability to get big things done could be just as shackled as is President Obama's ability to push his agenda through a hostile House of Representatives.

Mr. Romney could be appealing and persuasive, they say. But he also could display a certain political tone-deafness and a failure to nurture the constituencies he needed to make his initiatives succeed.

Mr. Romney promoted his record on Wednesday as a bipartisan leader by noting that he met regularly with the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts legislature. But that apparently was not enough to keep afloat a relationship that had been rancorous from the beginning.

In the opening months of his tenure, Mr. Romney vetoed a House plan to create new committees and raise legislative pay, and the legislators rejected his flagship proposal, a nearly 600-page plan to overhaul the state bureaucracy. "They had a deteriorating relationship during the first two years," said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor and expert on state politics at Tufts University.

Mr. Romney proved to have a taste for vetoes, killing legislative initiatives in his first two years at more than twice the rate of his more popular Republican predecessor, William F. Weld, The Boston Globe reported in 2004.

Some seemed almost designed to rankle legislators: one rejected an increase in disability payments to a police officer who had slipped on an ice patch. Others reflect his ramrod-straight views on ethics and government waste - knocking down a special pension deal for a state legislator; rejecting a subsidy to Medicaid payments so nursing homes could provide kosher meals to Jewish residents.

"He seemed to take great delight in vetoing bills," recalled his director of legislative affairs, John O'Keefe. "Some of the bills we would chuckle when we wrote the veto message."

By 2004, the second year of his term, Mr. Romney was provoked enough to mount an unprecedented campaign to unseat Democratic legislators, spending $3 million in Republican Party money and hiring a nationally known political strategist, Michael Murphy, to plan the battle.

The effort failed spectacularly. Republicans lost seats, leaving them with their smallest legislative delegation since 1867. Democratic lawmakers were reported to have been deeply angered by the campaign's tactics.

On close scrutiny, some of the bipartisan successes that Mr. Romney claimed in the Wednesday debate turn out to by peppered with asterisks.

On education, Mr. Romney was correct in stating that Massachusetts students were ranked first in the nation during his tenure. Students in grades four and eight took top honors in reading and mathematics on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

However, educators largely credit an overarching reform of state schools 10 years earlier under Governor Weld. The reforms doubled state spending on schools and brought standards and accountability to administrators and students.

"Governor Romney does not get to take the credit for achieving that No. 1 ranking," said Mike Gilbert, field director for the nonprofit Massachusetts Association of School Committees, "but it did happen while he was in office."

Mr. Romney's claim that he was responsible for 19 separate tax cuts is also technically accurate, but not the full story. In 2005, for example, Mr. Romney's administration wrote legislation refunding $250 million in capital gains taxes - but the bill came only in response to a court ruling that the taxes had been illegally withheld in 2002.

Many of the other tax cuts were first proposed by the legislature, not Mr. Romney, and others were routine extensions of existing tax reductions or were one-day sales tax holidays.

Michael Barbaro contributed reporting.

Rad


Mitt Romney's Misogynistic Agenda is Designed to Punish Every Woman

By: Rmuse October 12th, 2012

It would be an exercise in futility to quantify hate in America because there is an abundance of groups that a certain segment of the population abhors based on racism, socio-economic status, and ancient religious mythos. There is an alarming increase in the hatred of women, and according to feminist theory, misogyny manifests itself in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women. It is an outrage that in 21st Century America, after generations of struggle and progress, the level of hatred targeting women is increasing, and it is primarily the purview of conservative Christians. Equally spectacular is the number of conservative women misogynists supporting and working hand-in-hand with Republican men to assign all women the roles dictated in the Christian bible, and whether they comprehend it or not, they are punishing themselves, their female family members, and every woman in America.

After Willard Romney tap-danced around the abortion issue on Wednesday, for a minute it appeared he softened his stance to appeal to women and voters in the middle with his assertion that "there's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." It was classic Romney mendacity and belies the statements he has made throughout the Republican primary and general election campaign, and in typical Romney fashion, he walked back his comments two hours later when his campaign stated, "Governor Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life" to fit the extremist Christian pro-life crowd's demand that America follow Old Testament edicts instead of the U.S. Constitution and established law.

Romney fits the feminist theory of misogyny exquisitely, and for good measure throws in a healthy dose of Mormon ideology on women's role in America. Romney, and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have established their position on women's rights that should frighten every semi-intelligent woman in America, but unfortunately, when religious fanaticism, racism, and self-hatred enter the picture, an alarming percentage of America's women become little more than tools to expedite an environment for women that will rival the harshest Islamic theocracy.

For the record, Romney supports the Blunt Amendment, defunding Planned Parenthood, a national Personhood Amendment, overturning Roe v. Wade, and his running mate co-sponsored Todd Akin's Sanctity of Human Life Act (legitimate rape law), and voted six times against gender equality in pay, against expanding protections for battered women, and against education funding. It is gross understatement to assert Romney and Ryan represent a clear and present danger to America's women, and yet every woman who intends to vote for the masters of misogyny are culpable for the impending patriarchal doom the Republican Party and bible prescribe.

The national personhood amendment Romney supports arguably becomes a ban on contraception that forces all women to become perpetual birth machines as well as making most forms of birth control murder weapons, and defunding Planned Parenthood denies millions of American women access to birth control as well as life-saving cancer screenings. Romney criticized President Obama for promoting hiring more teachers, and his promised cuts to education primarily affects women who make up 76% of the nation's teachers. Ryan votes against equal pay for women as a matter-of-course, and Romney remains non-committal for fear of alienating women more than his wife and her elitist attitude toward working women.

Mrs. Willard's support for her husband's agenda epitomizes what is wrong with conservative women stuck in biblical hell themselves, and is assisting Romney and Republicans to relegate all women to second-class status as birth machines and underpaid slaves.  If they aspire to work outside the home or not, they should be subservient to men like Willard whose cult elevates men to god status to dominate women. In fact, every single one of the misogynistic positions Romney and Republicans hold regarding women's rights, reproductive health, equal pay, access to healthcare, and protection from abuse is about male superiority set forth in the bible and Book of Mormon.

After observing the Republican war on women since the start of the 112th Congress, it is mindboggling that any woman would support a GOP candidate for president of the United States. Romney attempts to appeal to women as their economic salvation, but if they imagine being stuck home churning out a baby-a-year, or taking a job for less pay than a man is going to earn them the American Dream, they are as deluded as the conservative misogynist's field-manual (bible) is fantasy. Romney has made it crystal clear his allegiance is to the wealthy and not America's women or their right to equal pay, reproductive health, or ability to decide when they give birth. Willard exposed his true feelings about women when he refused to condemn Rush Limbaugh's disgusting remarks about Sandra Fluke, and although he claimed he would have used different language, he certainly agreed with Limbaugh's message. His pro-life position eliminates women's right to choose their own reproductive health, and defunding Planned Parenthood guarantees low-income women lose cancer screenings and contraception assistance.

It is no mystery why misogyny is rampant in America, or why it is unique to Republicans, Christian conservatives, and Mormons; it is simply because they adhere to archaic Jewish mythology found in the Christian bible. Maybe women who support Republican misogyny suffer from Stockholm syndrome and identify so strongly with their captors that the idea of punishing every other woman in America is not only acceptable, it is appealing. However, every vote for Romney or his Republican misogynist cohort is a vote against their daughters, sisters, and mother's well-being and hope for equality, and regardless how much they hate American women, one would think familial instincts would engage and they would oppose men like Romney.

Republicans are the party of hate and their standard bearer, Willard Romney, has proven he is the avatar of hate toward the American people, but especially women. There is not one single Romney policy that does not adversely affect most of the population, and that includes the 47% Romney writes off as parasites, but especially women. At least Romney's hatred of 47% of Americans was spoken at a private fundraiser, his hatred of America's women, though, is expressed in every stump speech, interview, and press conference, and unfortunately it invigorates conservative Christian women who intend on forcing every woman in America to share in their biblical hell as subservient birth machines and underpaid slaves which is precisely what Romney is selling the American people.

Rad


Sensata Workers Are Living Proof that Romney's Tough Talk on China is Worthless

By: Jason EasleyOctober 13th, 2012   

Mitt Romney is running around Ohio talking tough about China today, but one place he won't go near is Freeport, IL where the Bain owned Sensata Technologies is sending 170 jobs to China.

During campaign stops in Ohio today, Romney said, "It's time for us to stand up to China for their cheating. It's got to stop. We've got to get those jobs back and make trade to be fair."

In a statement, Obama campaign spokesman Danny Kanner responded to Romney's tough talk, "Mitt Romney's talking tough, but his record and his policies show he's anything but when it comes to China. Mitt Romney called the President's aggressive action on behalf of American tire workers "˜decidedly bad for the nation.' As a corporate buyout specialist, he invested in companies that were pioneers in outsourcing to low-wage countries like China. And now, while President Obama would close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, Mitt Romney's tax plan could create 800,000 jobs outside of America. That's not a candidate who would be tough on China as president - that's a candidate who thinks sounding tough will win him votes."

The best way to understand Romney's real attitude towards China, is to watch the workers at the Sensata plant tell their story:

As one worker put it, "Before I ever knew anything about Bain Capital, I actually kind of liked Mitt Romney. You know, I thought, okay, he is going to create jobs. He is going to, you know, save America, so when I found out about this, it's like okay, you really aren't doing what you say you're going to do. You aren't going to create American jobs because the companies that you profit off of are sending jobs, and you're not doing anything about it."

According to The New York Times, Romney could stand to profit off of the Sensata outsourcing, "In addition, Mr. Romney's generous retirement agreement ensures that he continues to profit from the deals and decisions that Bain makes. He owns about $8 million worth of Bain funds that hold 51 percent of Sensata's shares. If Sensata saves money by closing the Freeport plant, that could add money to Mr. Romney's trust accounts, now or after the election."

Mitt Romney has made vast sums of money off outsourcing, so does anyone really believe that he will crack down on China and stand up for American jobs? Romney's business experience has taught him that outsourcing is a good thing, so why would ever be in true opposition to something that he has been so personally lucrative to him?

It is simple common sense.

Don't listen to the words coming out of Mitt Romney's mouth on the campaign trail. Look at his actions when he wasn't running for president. Those actions speak volumes, and reveal that for American workers, Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Mitt Romney's tough talk on China is worthless, when his deeds prove that he is adding to his fortune by selling out American workers and outsourcing their jobs.

Romney actions speak much louder than his hollow and insincere words to America's workers. The workers at the Sensata plant are living proof that Mitt Romney is no friend of the American worker.

Click to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grQTuIYnreg&feature=player_embedded

Rad

October 14, 2012

Death By Ideology

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NYT

Mitt Romney doesn't see dead people. But that's only because he doesn't want to see them; if he did, he'd have to acknowledge the ugly reality of what will happen if he and Paul Ryan get their way on health care.

Last week, speaking to The Columbus Dispatch, Mr. Romney declared that nobody in America dies because he or she is uninsured: "We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance." This followed on an earlier remark by Mr. Romney - echoing an infamous statement by none other than George W. Bush - in which he insisted that emergency rooms provide essential health care to the uninsured.

These are remarkable statements. They clearly demonstrate that Mr. Romney has no idea what life (and death) are like for those less fortunate than himself.

Even the idea that everyone gets urgent care when needed from emergency rooms is false. Yes, hospitals are required by law to treat people in dire need, whether or not they can pay. But that care isn't free - on the contrary, if you go to an emergency room you will be billed, and the size of that bill can be shockingly high. Some people can't or won't pay, but fear of huge bills can deter the uninsured from visiting the emergency room even when they should. And sometimes they die as a result.

More important, going to the emergency room when you're very sick is no substitute for regular care, especially if you have chronic health problems. When such problems are left untreated - as they often are among uninsured Americans - a trip to the emergency room can all too easily come too late to save a life.

So the reality, to which Mr. Romney is somehow blind, is that many people in America really do die every year because they don't have health insurance.

How many deaths are we talking about? That's not an easy question to answer, and conservatives love to cite the handful of studies that fail to find clear evidence that insurance saves lives. The overwhelming evidence, however, is that insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer. For example, states that expand their Medicaid coverage, and hence provide health insurance to more people, consistently show a significant drop in mortality compared with neighboring states that don't expand coverage.

And surely the fact that the United States is the only major advanced nation without some form of universal health care is at least part of the reason life expectancy is much lower in America than in Canada or Western Europe.

So there's no real question that lack of insurance is responsible for thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of excess deaths of Americans each year. But that's not a fact Mr. Romney wants to admit, because he and his running mate want to repeal Obamacare and slash funding for Medicaid - actions that would take insurance away from some 45 million nonelderly Americans, causing thousands of people to suffer premature death. And their longer-term plans to convert Medicare into Vouchercare would deprive many seniors of adequate coverage, too, leading to still more unnecessary mortality.

Oh, about the voucher thing: In his debate with Vice President Biden, Mr. Ryan was actually the first one to mention vouchers, attempting to rule the term out of bounds. Indeed, it's apparently the party line on the right that anyone using the word "voucher" to describe a health policy in which you're given a fixed sum to apply to health insurance is a liar, not to mention a big meanie.

Among the lying liars, then, is the guy who, in 2009, described the Ryan plan as a matter of "converting Medicare into a defined contribution sort of voucher system." Oh, wait - that was Paul Ryan himself.

And what if the vouchers - for that's what they are - turned out not to be large enough to pay for adequate insurance? Then those who couldn't afford to top up the vouchers sufficiently - a group that would include many, and probably most, older Americans - would be left with inadequate insurance, insurance that exposed them to severe financial hardship if they got sick, sometimes left them unable to afford crucial care, and yes, sometimes led to their early death.

So let's be brutally honest here. The Romney-Ryan position on health care is that many millions of Americans must be denied health insurance, and millions more deprived of the security Medicare now provides, in order to save money. At the same time, of course, Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are proposing trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. So a literal description of their plan is that they want to expose many Americans to financial insecurity, and let some of them die, so that a handful of already wealthy people can have a higher after-tax income.

It's not a pretty picture - and you can see why Mr. Romney chooses not to see it.


Rad


Is Mitt Romney Mentally Ill?

By: Rmuse October 15th, 2012

During an important election to decide the fate and direction of a country, a voter is likely to consider a candidate's consistency of actions, values, methods, principles, and expectations, as well as outcomes from previous experience in political office before supporting a candidate. Many voters contemplate a candidate's honesty and truthfulness, or accuracy of actions, before deciding to cast their vote, and few would choose a candidate renowned for lies and hypocrisy because it defines the candidate as morally deficient with anti-social tendencies. Americans are witnessing a morally deficient candidate for the presidency, and if it is not obvious by now that Willard Mitt Romney is a pathological liar, a hypocrite, and deceitful in words and deeds, it is about time his possible mental illness, Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASP), is exposed to the American people.

An individual suffering from ASP is calculating, manipulative, frequently charming and alluring, and fits the clinical portrait matching depictions of con artists and predators found in literature, and is masterful at using machinations of a criminal who fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. Some criteria psychologists use to diagnose ASP are deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, conning others for personal profit, and lacking remorse or rationalizing having caused harm. Besides persistent lying, Romney demonstrates an innate inability to care about harming others borne out of narcissism, elevated self-worth, and a sense of extreme entitlement and cannot tolerate authority figures. If these criteria seem suspiciously similar to convicted felons and life-criminals, it is because over one-third of the prison population suffers from different degrees of ASP and,  like Romney, they have a childhood history of the disorder.

Over the course of the campaign, stories of Willard's childhood bullying and disregard for people other than himself abound, and besides chasing and holding down a gay classmate and cutting his hair, there are other instances of his disregard for others. Romney's impersonating a police officer is not just a prank, and victims of Romney's faux law enforcement attention may have a different opinion of his behavior that contradicts the portrait of the squeaky-clean Mormon boy. Indeed, Romney carried his disregard for young Americans into college when he protested in favor of sending young men to fight and die in Viet Nam while his "religious" deferments allowed him to luxuriate in a French castle while he proselytized French people into his cult.

Willard carried his disregard for other people with him to Bain Capital where he repeatedly lied and  conned unwitting companies and shareholders into believing that, under Bain management, their firms would flourish only to end up in bankruptcy as Romney and his partners pillaged their assets, shuttered businesses, and raided employee's pensions all for personal profit. Romney's narcissism drives him to claim he saved the Salt Lake City Olympics, but he is remiss to give credit to the American taxpayer who funded his efforts to the tune of $1.5 billion, and then destroyed records to conceal malfeasance and cronyism related to his Mormon business associates. He continued covering tracks at the end of his failed term as Massachusetts governor when he charged taxpayers for wiping computers to conceal internal correspondence, and his bankruptcy gang repeated the cover-up practice by destroying books and records in the eToys bankruptcy between 1999 and 2001. Old habits die hard, but especially when they are borne of a cognitive disorder like ASP.

Romney's narcissism informs his fallacious contention that he "retroactively retired" from Bain Capital in February 1999 despite SEC and FEC filings clearly showing he was CEO until 2002, and his blatant disregard for the law allowed him to assume that because he is Willard Romney, federal and state law enforcement officials dared not challenge his contention that he lied on disclosures. Recently, Romney displayed his belief the law did not apply to all Americans equally when a mine owner who forced workers to lose pay to stand with Romney at a rally contacted Willard for help after a complaint filed with the FEC and Ohio Democrats alleged "extortion, money laundering, racketeering," to which  Romney responded "We get a lot of charges, this will go away." It was a telling statement that reeks of an organized crime boss used to influencing investigations to avoid prosecution, and not something an upright businessman, or candidate for president, would cavalierly utter.

Throughout the campaign for the presidency, Romney has distinguished himself as a master of mendacity, and boasts that his wealth qualifies him to "run" America as a company Bain Capital is preparing to pillage for Romney's personal profit. His persistent lying conceals his well-laid plans to eliminate funding for myriad programs that help the least fortunate Americans to fund tax cuts for himself, and informs a man devoid of compassion for others borne out of an extreme sense of entitlement and elevated self-worth.

Romney may not express his dysfunction the same as a convict who shows disregard for others physically, but his willingness to destroy jobs while at Bain Capital, or as president by eliminating entire agencies to fund his tax cuts, is only a matter of degree. As a psychologist pointed out, sociopaths like Romney do not think or act like normal people, and his aggression is acted out on entire groups such as the 47% he considers parasites, or gays, women, and minorities. Romney has demonstrated he will do anything to succeed and everything in "the service of his own wishes" and not what is good for the American people or this country. Willard's biggest advantage to date is that it is incomprehensible that a presidential candidate would resort to lying, obfuscation, and blatant racism in his bid for the White House, and to a degree this falls on a negligent press that is as aware of Romney's anti-social behavior, record of entitlement and flouting the law as anyone, and yet they have turned a blind eye to his malfeasance.

Perhaps Romney's greatest crime is purporting to be a Christian to appeal to the religious right. The crazy Mormon foundations and beliefs notwithstanding, would a Christian lie as a matter of course, promote pre-emptive war, cut funding for children, seniors, and Veterans in the pursuit of greater tax cuts for himself? Willard Romney has given every indication under the Sun that he harbors sociopathic tendencies on a variety of levels, and as such, is not qualified or trustworthy to run for the presidency much less win the election. Any reasonable human being is revolted by a pathological liar, narcissist, and entitled charlatan, so it is curious why any American other than Mrs. Willard thinks he is qualified to be president. It is true that a president has to be something more than normal to handle the Herculean job of leading America, but the idea of more than normal does not mean abnormal, and certainly not a self-entitled narcissist displaying all the traits of a dysfunctional antisocial sociopath with personality disorders reminiscent of a third of the prison population.

Rad

Romney a no-show for Nickelodeon's "˜Kids Pick the President' program

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:27 EDT

President Barack Obama wooed Americans not yet old enough to vote Monday in a unique children's television news special that his rival Mitt Romney opted to avoid.

Obama fielded pre-recorded questions from under-18s on topics as varied as the economy, gun control, gay marriage and heartbreak during the half-hour program titled "Kids Pick the President: The Candidates."

"The good news is that we're starting to bounce back," said Obama in reply to a 14-year-old Texan's question about hard times and the middle class. "The most important thing for you guys is making sure you've got a great education."

Television news veteran Linda Ellerbee, who hosted the show on the Nickelodeon children's channel, told viewers that Romney had been asked since April to participate in the show.

But his team replied they were "unable to fit it in" to his schedule - leaving producers to put together a mash-up of Romney sound bites from the campaign trail in the interest of equal time.

"I don't know if it's a bad thing for the Romney campaign (not to participate), but it is a bad thing for the Nickelodeon audience," Ellerbee told AFP a few hours before Monday's broadcast.

"The point of our show is not about who wins. It's about engaging kids in the democratic process early."

On gun control, Obama said he favored a ban on assault weapons. On immigration, he said those who enter the United States illegally to seek a better life should "have a chance to earn their citizenship over time."

In response to a California teenager with many gay friends, he stated: "I've got a lot of gay friends, too"¦ Ultimately, it's the right thing to do, and the fair thing to do, to allow gay couples to marry."

He also confessed to going through heartbreak.

"That happened to me," he replied to a 15-year-old who asked the president what lost love had taught him. "I think the main thing you learn is that, you know, life goes on."

With no known video of Romney discussing heartbreak, the producers did what they could with file footage of the candidate at such un-childlike events as the National Rifle Association convention, where he defended gun ownership.

He was also seen behind a podium ticking off "the five things I'm going to do" to create middle-class jobs: "energy, education - the skills we need to succeed, trade, balancing our budget and championing small business."

"We want to be fair, but it's not equal," Ellerbee told AFP. "We have no news clip of Romney answering a very kid-like question."

"Kids Pick the President" premiered a day before Obama, who has two young daughters, and Romney, with five grown children and 18 grandchildren, face off in the second of three prime-time debates ahead of the November 6 election.

***************

Scared of Joy and Whoopi, Mitt Romney Cancels on The View

By: Sarah Jones October 15th, 2012

Mitt Romney has shocked no one by suddenly announcing that no, he will not go on ABC's The View. His wife Ann will go on for him this Thursday due to "scheduling" problems. The View is too "high risk" for Romney. There are people and they ask questions"¦.

Remember when Mitt Romney was telling his 50k a plate friends about how lazy we all were and how we thought we were entitled to food? Well, he also told them that he thought The View was "high risk" for a candidate like him, with four "sharp-tongued" women and only one conservative.

Yes, that means all of you women who do not agree with Mitt Romney are sharp-tongued harpies and FemiNazis who don't deserve to have breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood and he knows just what to do about it, thanks for trying to talk to him, but no thanks.

Here's Mr. Presidential discussing the women of The View, "Four are sharp-tongued and not conservative, Whoopi Goldberg in particular," he said. "Although the last time I was on the show, she said to me, "˜You know what? I think I could vote for you.' I said I must have done something really wrong."

Oh, good one, Mr. Romney - slap down that woman who almost bought into your used car salesman routine. Yes, we can't have Whoopi voting for Romney, that would make him look bad. After all, she's black and sharp-tongued. Can you say 47%? You People don't understand how hard it is to have to listen to you during the campaign.

Mitt Romney sees The View as too high risk, but running America, which is full of people sorta like the panel on The View - which is the entire point of that show, by the way - hey, that is No Problem, because you don't have to talk to people or even like them in order to harvest the country for profit. Nice Elisabeth Hasselback, now she's the kind of woman who isn't sharp-tongued because she reads her talking points each morning with great sincerity and never questions authority. But Joy and Whoopi? Too sharp tongued and high risk for a man like Mitt Romney.

See, ladies? How hard is this, eh? Lest you feel picked on, you must remember that Mitt Romney also preened that David Letterman hates him because Mitt has gone on Jay Leno's show more. This assumes that Mitt is a big draw, when in fact, he is not. Dave must hate him for another reason"¦.

You just can't be a Republican unless you suspect that everyone hates you as much as you secretly hate them. Romney is doing what all strong, courageous politicians do when they are afraid to meet with a group of voters - he's throwing his wife at them and running for the hills. This is not the first time Romney has used his wife Ann as a shield, but it may be the last time he thinks it's a good idea.

After Romney wins, the Imperial Presidency will commence immediately. The View might be canceled for representing too many Americans who shouldn't be allowed to voice their sharp tongued opinions, but that will teach them to get a job. Lazy victims.

The View is too radical for Mitt Romney, but he wants to "run" America because while he might have said he had no use for half of America, there's that top 2% that really needs some protection from the greedy vultures like the women on The View - oh, except Elisabeth.

Don't worry. If you're really jonesing for some presidential TV on Thursday, your President will be on Jon Stewart's show, unless he suddenly cancels after a hidden tape comes out in which he calls Jon Stewart a sharp-tongued risk and half of America "victims". No? Too absurd for a President? Think again, America!

Mitt Romney won't go on The View, so I think we can assume that all of MSNBC is out the entire four years of his term, should he manage to win. The women over there are very sharp-tongued and high risk. In Mitt Romney's America, you can take the picture accompanying this article and cross all of the women out except the young, pretty, white blonde. She is not high risk, so she can stay.

If you are not left standing, Romney doesn't even want your vote because it would suggest he is doing something wrong.

What do you do when you are too scared to speak to a group of women, when they aren't profitable for you, when they are too high risk to even speak to? If you're Mitt Romney, you toss them Ann and run.