Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2020, 02:40 AM
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down
Author Topic: The Presidential Election In The USA..........  (Read 83224 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #135 on: Nov 01, 2012, 07:11 AM »

Even the Beltway is Catching on to Romney’s ‘Desperate Dishonesty’

By: Sarah Jones October 31st, 2012

On Bloomberg TV, Al Hunt, executive Washington editor for Bloomberg News, said that Romney’s “dishonest” ads about Chrysler and GM moving to China are “just desperation.” Hunt pointed out that executives of the auto companies have called the ads fraudulent, and that President Obama saved the American auto industry while Romney opposed the rescue.

Yes, you know all of this already and the polls confirm it, but what makes this special is that Al Hunt said it. Al Hunt called Romney desperate and dishonest.


HUNT: Moreover, when Romney runs a dishonest ad claiming that the Obama auto rescue plan is resulting in Chrysler and General Motors moving jobs overseas to China, that’s just desperation. Romney opposed rescuing the American automobile industry. Obama favored it, and it worked, as Ohio Republican, Governor John Kasich, and Senator Rob Portman have attested. Moreover, his ad is fraudulent according to executives from Chrysler and General Motors. I would remind you of one thing. No Republican has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio.

Hunt is not just some journalist. He worked for the Wall Street Journal for many years and was even their executive Washington editor. He was one of ten people chosen to remember Tim Russert at his memorial service. When Hunt calls you desperate and dishonest, you are cooked.

Or, if you are a conservative, you just scream that Al Hunt is a “left wing extremist”. A “left wing radical” translates to an informed person who refuses to bend reality for conservatives. Here’s Hunt’s bio on Bloomberg: “Albert R. Hunt is a Bloomberg View columnist appearing on Mondays. The executive editor of Bloomberg News, he directs coverage of the Washington bureau, which includes more than 250 reporters and editors. Hunt hosts the weekly television show “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” In his four decades at the Wall Street Journal, he was a reporter, bureau chief and executive Washington editor and wrote the weekly column “Politics & People.” Al also directed the Journal’s polls, was president of the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund and a board member of the Ottaway community newspapers. He was a panelist on the CNN programs “The Capital Gang” and “Novak, Hunt & Shields.” Al is co-author of books on U.S. elections by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. His Bloomberg column also appears in the International Herald Tribune.”

In a sane world, no one would accuse Bloomberg of being a hotbed of liberal radicalism. Thus we are left with the knowledge that even the centrists are calling out Mitt Romney and using the words “fraudulent” “dishonest” and “desperate” to describe the Republican’s ads.

A new Michigan poll shows Obama with a 6 point lead over Romney. EPIC-MRA pollster Bernie Porn told the Detroit Free Press, “I think the auto issue … has solidified things for Obama.” The Free Press explains the support, “Half of those polled said the rescue of GM and Chrysler was a deciding factor in their support — and of those, nearly two-thirds backed Obama.”

When Romney went after two huge American corporations, he introduced a whole new segment of the population to his mendacity. Or, as Republicans call it, “winning”.


Joe Biden Destroys ‘Contortionist’ Romney for His GM/Chrysler Lies

By: Sarah Jones October 31st, 2012

Speaking in Florida Wednesday, Vice President Biden said of Chrysler and GM, “They don’t want to get involved in presidential politics, but they spoke up. They called it, quote – I’m going to quote – “a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.” That’s the quote. I wouldn’t call these guys acrobats, I’d call them contortionists.”

The American people, the Vice President said, want a President they can trust, and they know Romney doesn’t pass that test.

Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERRzrhKzdV8


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States rescued the automobile industry, saving one million jobs, creating 200,000 new jobs, good paying jobs you can raise a family on. GM is back. Chrysler is the fastest growing automaker in the world. And what’s happened? What’s Ryan’s and Romney’s response. Desperation. Desperation.

In the last hours of this campaign – I just came from Ohio – in the last hours of this campaign, if you can believe it, they’re running the most scurrilous ad in Ohio, and I mean this, I want you to listen – one of the most flagrantly dishonest ads I can ever remember in my political career. In the ad they’re running in Ohio, they said that President Obama forced Chrysler into bankruptcy – I’m paraphrasing, but they said – so quote – I don’t what they have against Italians – so the Italians could take over Chrysler and ship Jeep manufacturing to China. That’s what the ad says. That’s what the a says. It’s an outrageous lie, a lie that’s so deceptive and so patently untrue that the Chrysler Corporation, including the chairman of the board of Chrysler, they actually spoke up. They don’t want to get involved in presidential politics, but they spoke up. They called it, quote – I’m going to quote – “a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.” That’s the quote. I wouldn’t call these guys acrobats, I’d call them contortionists…

Ladies and gentlemen, GM’s response to the false assertions these guys are coming up with in the last waning moments of the campaign – I love this quote – they said, quote, “they must be in a parallel universe.” That’s a quote from GM. GM went on to say, they called it campaign – this is a quote – “campaign politics at its cynical worst.” Have you ever heard an American corporation do that? In all my time, I’ve never heard an American corporation in the waning hours of a campaign give that kind of description of what a presidential candidate’s doing. That’s the best description of the cynical worst that I’ve heard of the Ryan-Romney ticket, the Romney-Ryan ticket, in this campaign…

Look, why would they do this? Why would they do this in the face of overwhelming facts contradicting them? I’ll tell you why I think: they’re trying to scare the living devil out of a group of people who have been hurt so badly over the last, the previous four years before we came to office. The last year before we were sworn in they lost 400,000 auto jobs. My state of Delaware was decimated. It had seen both its Chrysler and its General Motors plants close. Those folks in Ohio, in Lorrain and Toledo, they lost, some of them lost their homes after they lost their jobs. They lost – they’re back on their feet, they’re back. But they still feel the sting of what happened four years ago.

Because they’re running those ads in the very communities that were decimated by those policies, communities that had the most at stake in the automobile industry, these are the workers waking up in their communities just to see this ad. And guess what? They were calling, thousands of them calling their UAW reps. “Is it true? Is it true? Is Jeep really going to leave?” It’s the announcement they made, “Are you going to shut down our plant?” What a cynical, cynical thing to do…

Folks, I’ve not seen anything like this. Folks, the president’s job is not to sow confusion, it’s to plant the seeds of confidence. You’ve probably heard me say it before and I’ll say it again, presidential elections are overwhelmingly about character. They’re overwhelmingly about the character of [inaudible]. Character, character, character. It’s the most impressive trait and necessary trait a president must possess to lead the nation and the incredible people that we are. And my guy, your guy, Barack Obama has character. He’s got backbone like a ramrod. He has the character of his convictions. He does not engage in deception. He does not mislead. He says what he means and he stands by what he says.

And that’s one thing his opponent has not done. He has not stood by anything he has said. So ask yourself in this election, who do you trust? Who do you trust to be straight with you? To level with you? Who do you trust to stand up for the middle class? Who do you trust to stand up for America? Ladies and gentlemen, America does [inaudible]. We are not in decline, they are in denial.


I’d fact check this for you AGAIN, but I’ve spent days linking to reality. It is an established fact that the Romney campaign is guilty of an absurd lie. But facts are apparently now a partisan issue due to Romney’s refusal to be dictated to by them. Here’s the newsflash: Biden told the truth. Romney lied again. Romney scared voters in Ohio and smeared Chrysler and GM because it’s what he does.

It’s not fair to mislead the American people about the fundamentals of who you are. Romney was against the auto bailout and he should take the hits for his position. He obviously felt strongly enough about it to gloat about it endlessly during the crisis and right up until after polls showed him losing Ohio.

The truth is that the Romney campaign jumped the fact shark a long time ago, and he’s not playing typical spin politics — he’s destroying the credibility of the election process with lies so huge they bear no relationship to reality. The Obama campaign focuses on reality that speaks well of their choices, they spin the take on reality to advance Democratic beliefs, but they do not cheerfully attack with utter falsehoods and refuse to tweak their claims when hit by factcheckers (whose own inability to see Romney’s lies in their consistent arc rather than piece by piece is a problem).

These two campaigns aren’t playing the same game at all. One is politics and the other is a circus act of deliberately deceptive contortions.

CHICAGO points out the reason for Romney’s lies, “As Mitt Romney’s path to 270 becomes further out of reach, his attacks get further from the truth… As Vice President Biden asked Floridians this morning, why should voters trust someone who will say absolutely anything to get elected, even when he knows it’s dishonest?”
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #136 on: Nov 01, 2012, 07:14 AM »

Obama’s Lead in Grows in Three Ohio Polls as Romney’s Jeep Lie Backfires

By: Jason Easley October 31st, 2012

In days since Mitt Romney lied and said Jeep was moving production to China, Barack Obama’s lead has expanded in three different polls.

In the closest of the polls, the ” University of Cincinnati found that since Romney claimed that Jeep is moving production to China, the contest has gone from 48%-48% tie to a 48%-46% Obama lead. In the latest PPP poll, President Obama has gained a point on Mitt Romney in the last three days. Since his Jeep lie, Romney has lost two points in the state, and the president now leads 50%-45%. In the Newsmax/Zogby Ohio tracking poll, Obama has increased his lead from 48%-45% to 50%-44%. In two other polls, Obama’s lead remains the same as it was last week. In the CBS News/Quinnipiac poll, Obama leads 50%-45%, and in the SurveyUSA poll, the president maintained a 48%-45% lead.

The best case scenario for Mitt Romney after he lied about Jeep moving production to China, then doubled down with a misleading television ad, and then tripled down with a lie filled radio ad is that he hasn’t lost any more ground to the president. However, it is clear that Romney is not gaining ground in Ohio, as the president has led the state in 20 of the last 22 polls. There is no momentum for Romney in Ohio. Three new polls show that Mitt Romney has lost support in the state since he decided to try to lie to Ohio’s voters.

The average of all polling in the state gives Obama a 2.4 point lead, but in four of the last five polls Obama’s lead is greater than the average. Mitt Romney’s tactical decision to try to scare voters into supporting him appears to be backfiring. Voters are more often than not in these polls moving away from Romney. He has been roundly condemned for his false statements by newspapers and other media outlets across the state and the country.

Voters aren’t stupid. They know the story of the auto bailout, and they don’t appreciate being lied to.

Romney’s ploy to win Ohio may end up backfiring and turning an Obama lead into a victory on Election Day.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #137 on: Nov 02, 2012, 07:52 AM »

Campaign Stops - Strong Opinions on the 2012 Election
November 1, 2012, 12:25 am

Liberty to Lie


This election may go down in history as the moment when truth and lies lost their honor and stigma, respectively.

Mitt Romney has demonstrated an uncanny, unflinching willingness to say anything and everything to win this election. And that person, the unprincipled prince of untruths, is running roughly even with or slightly ahead of the president in the national polls.

What does this say about our country? What does it say about the value of virtue?

The list of Romney's out-and-out lies (and yes, there is no other more polite word for them) is too long to recount here. So let's just take one of the most recent ones: the utterly false claim that General Motors and Chrysler shipped, or planned to ship, American auto jobs to China.

First, let's take on the Chrysler claim.

On Saturday, The Des Moines Register endorsed Mitt Romney because it thought that he would be "the stronger candidate" to forge "compromises in Congress." On Tuesday, the news side of that same publication fact-checked Romney's Chrysler-China claim and found that it was a lie.

According to the Register:

    Mitt Romney first told a crowd in Ohio on Thursday that Chrysler was shifting the production of Jeeps to China. Then he aired an ad claiming that President Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." (The clear impression in the ad is that American jobs will be lost.) Neither is true.

The paper continued:

    Jeep sales have nearly tripled since 2009, according to Chrysler, and the company has added 4,600 jobs to its Jeep plants since then. Another 1,100 jobs will be added at an Ohio plant next year. Sales of Jeep in China have grown in recent years and Chrysler plans to resume vehicle production there, but not at the expense of American jobs.

Now on to GM. The Romney ad claims that "under President Obama, GM cut 15,000 American jobs, but they are planning to double the number of cars built in China, which means 15,000 more jobs for China."

This drew a sharp rebuke from GM:

    We've clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days. No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.

Factcheck.org went into more detail to disprove Romney's claim:

    The Romney radio ad also claims - correctly - that GM has cut 15,000 U.S. jobs under Obama. It's true that 13,000 U.S. hourly employees and 5,000 salaried workers accepted a buyout offer in 2009 to either retire early or voluntarily leave the company, according to GM's 2009 annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Web site continued:

    But those numbers don't tell the whole story. GM eliminated old brands and shuttered dealerships when it went through bankruptcy in 2009 - resulting in fewer jobs. The alternative was to go out of business entirely.

And made one further point:

    The radio ad goes on to falsely claim that the reduction in GM's U.S. payroll "means 15,000 more jobs for China." That's not true. As we wrote once before, GM is expanding operations in China to meet increased demand there for its vehicles. The increase in its China operations is unrelated to its U.S. operations.

Romney wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it kissed him on the cheek. In fact, Romney seems to have decided that the only things standing between him and the White House are stubborn facts. He continues to roll right over them.

The question is: will this scurrilous tactic have negative consequences?

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that facts and the people who check them don't carry the same weight that they once did.

First, the right's disinformation machine is, explicitly and implicitly, making the argument that facts (science, math, evidence) are fungible and have been co-opted by liberal eggheads.  They have declared war on facts in response to what they claim is a liberal war on faith.

This is an utterly false and ridiculous argument, but it works on some people.

According to a Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News Swing State poll released Wednesday, President Obama has a 9 percentage point lead over Romney in Ohio among likely voters on the question of who is honest and trustworthy (most people thought that the president was honest while most would not say the same about Romney). But that same poll found that the president only had a 5-point lead in the horse race numbers in Ohio.

The president had a similarly large lead on the honesty question in Florida in Virginia, but in those states the poll found the race to be virtually tied - the president had a small lead that was within the margin of error.

How is it that so many people are willing to support a man who they don't believe is honest or trustworthy?

The poll also found that most voters didn't believe that Romney cared about their problems. On the other hand, at least 60 percent of voters in each state said that they believed that the president cared about their problems.

Who votes for a man who doesn't care about you over a man who does?

I recognize that Obama hatred is a real thing, but disliking the president so much that you would do harm to yourself by voting for someone who you admit you don't trust seems to be taking things to extremes.

All the voters who are aware of Romney's fact-mangling but vote for him anyway must ask themselves this question: are they granting him the liberty to lie?


October 31, 2012
NY Times Editorial

Romney Versus the Automakers

When General Motors tells a presidential campaign that it is engaging in “cynical campaign politics at its worst,” that’s a pretty good signal that the campaign has crossed a red line and ought to pull back. Not Mitt Romney’s campaign. Having broadcast an outrageously deceitful ad attacking the auto bailout, the campaign ignored the howls from carmakers and came back with more.

Mr. Romney apparently plans to end his race as he began it: playing lowest-common-denominator politics, saying anything necessary to achieve power and blithely deceiving voters desperate for clarity and truth.

This started months ago when he realized that his very public 2008 stance against the successful and wildly popular government bailout of G.M. and Chrysler was hurting him in the valuable states of Ohio and Michigan. In February, he wrote an essay for The Detroit News calling the bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale” because unions benefited and insisting that Detroit would have been better off to refuse federal money. (This ignores the well-documented reality that there was no other cash available to the carmakers.)

When that tactic didn’t work, he began insisting at the debates that his plan for Detroit wasn’t really that different from President Obama’s. (Except for the niggling detail of the $80 billion federal investment.)

That was quickly discredited, so Mr. Romney began telling rallies last week that Chrysler was considering moving its production to China. Chrysler loudly denounced it as “fantasies,” saying it was only considering increasing production in China for sale in China, without moving a single American job.

“I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” Chrysler’s chief executive, Sergio Marchionne, said in a statement. “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.” In fact, 1,100 new jobs will be added in Toledo to produce a new generation of Jeep.

The Romney campaign ignored the company, following up with an instantly notorious ad saying President Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China.” If the false implication wasn’t clear enough, the campaign put out a radio ad on Tuesday saying “Barack Obama says he saved the auto industry. But for who? Ohio or China?” What happened, the ad asks, “to the promises made to autoworkers in Toledo and throughout Ohio?”

What happened was that those promises were kept. Nearly 1.5 million people are working as a direct result of the bailout. Ohio’s unemployment rate is well below the national average. G.M.’s American sales continue to increase, and Chrysler said this week that its third-quarter net income rose 80 percent. These companies haven’t just bounced back from the bottom; they are accelerating.

What Mr. Romney cannot admit is that all this is a direct result of the government investment he would have rejected. It’s bad enough to be wrong on the policy. It takes an especially dishonest candidate to simply turn up the volume on a lie and keep repeating it.

By doing that in a flailing, last-minute grab for Ohio, Mr. Romney is providing a grim preview of what kind of president he would be.

Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #138 on: Nov 02, 2012, 07:56 AM »

Post Sandy Obama Returns to Campaigning with a Blistering Vengeance

By: Jason Easley November 1st, 2012

President Obama returning the campaign trail in Wisconsin with a blistering attack on the kind of change Mitt Romney would bring, and making his case for what real change will look like if he is reelected.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xk-W6rRs76w


    Now, in the closing weeks of this campaign, Governor Romney has been using all his talents as a salesman to dress up these very same policies that failed our country so badly, the very same policies we’ve been cleaning up after for the past four years, and he is offering them up as change. He is saying he is the candidate of change. Well, let me tell you, Wisconsin, we know what change looks like. What the Governor is offering sure ain’t change. Getting more power back to the biggest banks isn’t change. Leaving millions without health insurance isn’t change. Another $5 trillion tax cut that favors the wealthy isn’t change. Turning Medicare into a voucher is change, but we don’t want that change. Refusing to answer questions about the details of your policies isn’t change. Ruling out compromise by pledging to rubber stamp the tea party’s agenda as president, that’s definitely not change. In fact, that’s exactly the attitude in Washington that needs to go.

    Here’s the thing, Wisconsin. After four years as president, you know me by now. You may not agree with every decision I’ve made. You may be frustrated at the pace of change, but you know what I believe. You know where I stand. You know I’m willing to make tough decisions even when they’re not politically convenient, and you know I’ll fight for you and your families every single day as hard as I know how. You know that. I know what change looks like because I have fought for it. You have too. After all we’ve been through together, we sure as heck can’t give up now. Change is a country where Americans of every age have the skills and education that good jobs now require. Government can’t do this alone, but don’t tell me that hiring more teachers won’t help this economy grow or help young people compete. Don’t tell me that students who can’t afford college can just borrow money from their parents. That wasn’t an option for me. I’ll bet it wasn’t an option for a whole lot of you. We shouldn’t be ending college tax credits to pay for millionaires’ tax cuts. We should be making college more affordable for everyone who is willing to work for it. We should recruit 100,000 math and science teachers so that high-tech, high-wage jobs aren’t created in China. They’re created right here in Green Bay, Wisconsin. We should work with community colleges to claim another two million Americans with skills that businesses are looking for right now. That’s my plan for the future. That’s what change is. That’s the America we’re fighting for in this election.

Obama returned from his campaign postponement immediately after Hurricane Sandy with a vengeance today. The president isn’t speaking like a candidate who is losing. He seems to have found the right balance between contrasting what Romney would do as president with what he has done, and would continue to do over the next four years.

The Romney campaign continues to feed a mainstream media that is desperate to continue the this election could go either way narrative, but Obama has the look of a president who understands the electoral map, has a plan, and is sticking to it. The Obama campaign isn’t taking any state for granted. That’s why the president was in Wisconsin today. Obama has more paths to victory, but his leads aren’t big enough that he or his supporters should be taking anything for granted.

With just five days to go before the election, Obama is in a much better position than Romney. The president either leads or is tied in every battleground state. Obama’s goal over the remaining days is to protect and build on his advantages, while Romney has the much more difficult tasks of both flipping states and trying to expand the map.

Using Wisconsin as an example, here is how much easier Obama’s path to victory is. Even if Obama loses Wisconsin, he only needs to win four states that he is currently leading and favored in, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Iowa in order to win reelection. If Obama wins Wisconsin, he can afford to lose New Hampshire and Iowa, and still win a second term. Romney needs to win, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and either Iowa or Colorado in order to win the election. Romney currently leads in none of these states. If Romney loses Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or North Carolina, his path to winning the election become more difficult.

Obama is in a better position to win, but the only way that victory will become a reality is if all of his supporters go out and vote.


Fired Up in Las Vegas, POTUS Says Middle Class Deserves a Champion in DC

By: Sarah Jones November 1st, 2012

President Obama laid out his case to voters in Las Vegas, Nevada this afternoon, saying they middle class deserves a champion who will stand up and fight for them.

Watch the President’s remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_H_ZmQFsWQ


“The folks at the very top in this country don’t need another champion in Washington. They’ll always have a seat at the table. They’ll always have access and influence. That’s okay we understand that. The people who need a champion are the Americans whose letters I read late at night; the men and women I meet on the campaign trail every single day. The laid off furniture worker who is retraining at age 55 after they got laid off – she needs a champion. The small restaurant owner who needs a loan to expand after the bank turned him down – he needs a champion. The cooks and waiters and cleaning staff working overtime at a Vegas hotel, trying to save enough to buy a first home or send their kid to college – they need a champion. The autoworker who’s back on the job after thinking he might never go back — filled with the pride and dignity of building a great, American car – he needs a champion. The young teacher doing her best in an overcrowded classroom with outdated textbooks, digging into her own pocket to buy school supplies, never giving up on those kids, understanding that they can learn – she needs a champion.

And all those young people in inner cities and small farm towns, in the valleys of Ohio or rolling Virginia hills or right here in Vegas, way up in Elko; kids dreaming of becoming scientists or doctors, engineers or entrepreneurs, diplomats, maybe even a President – they need a champion in Washington. The future will never have as many lobbyists as the past, but it is the dreams of those children that will be our saving grace.”

Someone is fired up and ready to go. It seems the President is good a math and he can see that he has a path to victory if only everyone will show up on election day in order to exercise their right to vote. President Obama has been and will be a champion of the middle class. If you think we need more of that, you know what you need to do.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #139 on: Nov 02, 2012, 08:01 AM »

Business Abandons Romney as Bloomberg and The Economist Endorse Obama

By: Sarah Jones November 1st, 2012

Days before the election, the business community is abandoning Republican “businessman” Mitt Romney in order to endorse the Democratic incumbent President Obama. These are not ringing endorsements, but rather concern over Romney’s failure to make the math work and his hard turn to the right. In other words, Mitt Romney has finally managed to lose the faith and confidence of the one constituency that he was supposed to have locked up.

The Mayor of New York and the founder/majority owner of Bloomberg News endorsed Obama today. Bloomberg said if the old Mitt Romney were running, he might have voted for him. But given Romney’s tack to the right, Bloomberg is endorsing the President for a second term. He concluded, “If he (Obama) listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.”

Bloomberg wrote:

“When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.”

President Obama responded by saying, “I’m honored to have Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement. I deeply respect him for his leadership in business, philanthropy and government, and appreciate the extraordinary job he’s doing right now, leading New York City through these difficult days.

“While we may not agree on every issue, Mayor Bloomberg and I agree on the most important issues of our time – that the key to a strong economy is investing in the skills and education of our people, that immigration reform is essential to an open and dynamic democracy, and that climate change is a threat to our children’s future, and we owe it to them to do something about it. Just as importantly, we agree that whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or independents, there is only one way to solve these challenges and move forward as a nation – together. I look forward to thanking him in person – but for now, he has my continued commitment that this country will stand by New York in its time of need. And New Yorkers have my word that we will recover, we will rebuild, and we will come back stronger.”

The Economist endorsed Obama saying, “America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill.” Yes, not exactly a ringing endorsement, but then that speaks volumes about Mitt Romney.

They say Obama’s foreign policy could be better, but “Mr Obama has been a safe pair of hands.” They cite his healthcare achievement in addition to their view that his foreign policy is an achievement after spending the entire paragraph citing what’s wrong with it, “Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal. ‘Obamacare’ will correct that, but Mr Obama did very little to deal with the system’s other flaw—its huge and unaffordable costs.”

They are very unhappy with Obama’s surrender to “left-wing Democrats” — a charge the left would take issue with. They then go on about their doubts, leaving the reader with the impression that they would endorse anyone but Obama. They seem resentful of Obama’s attitudes toward business and capitalism (leaving one with the idea that they watch too much Fox News). They feel Obama has spent his entire campaign attacking business. I say learn to read; Obama didn’t attack business, he attacked greed and failure to pay taxes. But hey. They really can’t stand Obama.

And yet, they can’t endorse Mitt Romney. They write, “Many a Mitt makes a muddle.” Romney’s foreign policy terrifies them (so they are awake). The Economist writes, “But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his belief in “the Palestinians not wanting to see peace”. The bellicosity could start on the first day of his presidency, when he has vowed to list China as a currency manipulator—a pointless provocation to its new leadership that could easily degenerate into a trade war.”

Romney’s math is a problem for The Economist, “Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit.” Here they praise Obama for getting it and shame Romney for being in “the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts.” They say that backing business is important, but first you better get macroeconomics. Ouch.

The Economist counts Romney’s tack to the right as his biggest detriment, “(T)he extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap.” And ultimately they decide to go with the “devil we know.”

So, basically, they think Obama is the devil but he is a better devil than wildly right wing Romney who doesn’t even get macroeconomics and whose foreign policy is a threat that could lead immediately to a trade war.

Romney had to stink pretty badly for The Economist to come to this.

Mitt Romney has now managed to lose the one constituency he was supposed to have locked up, even as he fought for the evangelicals and Tea Party of his own base. Forget winning Independents, Romney is losing the business community. Meanwhile, the economic data is showing steady signs of modest improvement.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #140 on: Nov 02, 2012, 08:03 AM »

The War on Women Takes a Toll in Swing States and with Independents

By: Sarah Jones November 1st, 2012

Surprise! There really is a war on women and more people know about it than the media and the GOP let on. What’s really shocking is just who knows about it. 54% of Independent voters and 46% of swing state voters agree that there is a war on women, while 67% of Black men and 63% of Hispanic women agree there is a war on women. In other words, the war on women isn’t a liberal or Democratic issue; it’s broader than that (nice try, Republicans).

In a new poll commissioned by Rad Campaign and conducted by Lincoln Park Strategies, more Black men (67%) agree that there’s a war on women than any other race. Next up agreeing that there is a war on women are Hispanic women at 63%, Black women at 62%, White women at 47%, White men at 39% and Hispanic men at 33%.

They polled 1,000 likely voters and asked if respondents agreed or disagreed with this statement, “Lawmakers in Washington have been engaging in a War on Women, by taking away women’s rights to contraception, denying equal pay for equal work, and curbing a woman’s right to choose.”

More Liberal men (71%) agree there’s a War on Women than Liberal women (68%) (ladies, seriously? Check it out – proof of the war on women). What gave it away? Was it the women as livestock bill that Georgia passed (H.B. 954)? What gifts have the Republicans for you? Well, “this bill criminalizes abortion after 20 weeks, even if the woman is known to be carrying a stillborn fetus or the fetus isn’t expected to live to term.” There are no exceptions for rape or incest. But then, “crime has consequences” and “legitimate rape” has a way to shut all of that down and “incest is rare”. Don’t be upset ladies, Rep. England can explain this all to you real slow like. See, “if farmers have to ‘deliver calves, dead or alive,’ then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term.” Because you are a cow and Republicans are the farmers or something.

54% of Independent women voters agree that there is a war on women. That’s not good for Republicans, but it’s also much lower than it should be given the reality of the situation. Did you know that in Arizona, you are always in a state of perpetual possible pregnancy now? Yes. H.B. 2036 declares women “pregnant” 2 weeks before conception. Fun, right?

Here are some more bad numbers for Republicans. 46% of voters in swing states and 37% of voters in base Republican states believe that there is a war on women. Sadly, only 51% of voters in base Democrat states, where facts should matter, believe there is a war on women. It should be much higher. What’s the problem, people– too busy to come out to the farm to say hello to us?

Women under the age of 45 are more likely to feel under attack at 55%, according to the poll. That makes sense given that reproductive rights impact that group more, and statistically violence against women occurs at higher rates against younger women.

The war on women is more than words. It’s comprised of historic levels of anti women legislation being proposed and passed by Republican lawmakers, taking aim at women’s rights to contraception, abortion, and equal pay for equal work but also refusing to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

“It’s estimated that the House of Representatives wasted $249.6 million on the War on Women between January 2011 and July 2012,” said Rad Campaign’s co-founding partner Allyson Kapin. “The poll shows that people understand this is an attack on human rights, not just on women. With the election just days away, these numbers matter now more than ever.”

Republicans ran on jobs and then spent the last two years refusing to pass one single jobs bill, instead spending all of their time and your money taking freedom and liberty away from more than half of the population. There are women in jail right now for having a miscarriage, and yet these same men will tell you that we are fighting in the Middle East to protect women’s freedom — just another value they seem unable and unwilling to promote here at home.

Republicans dismiss the war on women as Democratic talking points, but they do so at their own peril.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #141 on: Nov 02, 2012, 08:05 AM »

Evangelicals Refuse to Support Romney, Urge Voters to Write In Jesus

By: Candace Talmadge November 1st, 2012

Internet evangelist Bill Keller is urging the faithful to promise to vote for Jesus for president in this election.

So far, his website, VotingforJesus.com, says it has more than 1.6 million pledges to write in the name of Jesus on their ballots instead of any other presidential candidate.

If even half of those who signed the pledge vote accordingly, this could signal real trouble for Mitt Romney in close races by reducing the pool of voters who usually opt for the GOP.

But Keller, in an email interview, argues otherwise. “A large percentage of the people signed up are part of the 9 million self-identified evangelicals who never voted at all in 2008,” he maintains. “While they will write in the name of Jesus for president, they will also vote for men and women who share their faith values down ticket. It is flawed logic that if you don’t vote for Romney, you are costing him votes or helping Obama. The only way to vote for either man is to vote for them.”

Keller also notes that those who signed the pledge “seem very serious and happy to have an outlet to take a stand for their faith.” He adds that the point of writing in Jesus’s name is not that he will win, but that the exercise offers those who pledge a chance “to take a stand for their faith by writing in the name of Jesus, to bring awareness that the real problems in this nation are NOT political, they are spiritual.”

How much impact this effort will have on the outcome at any level is anybody’s guess until the votes are counted and the exit polls analyzed the every last morsel of meaning.

It is clear right now, however, that Keller, who claims an audience of more than 2.4 million for his daily religious messages, has the ability to influence the actions of millions of them at least to the extent of making a promise on how they will vote.

Other conservative Christians have noticed and taken Keller to task for it, even going so far as to redirect a search for .org version of Keller’s VotingforJesus.com web address to a website where they argue that Keller’s pledge will take votes away from Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

It’s a fascinating glimpse into this year’s split between uber-right Christian voters who previously have cast their ballots pretty much in lock-step for GOP candidates like George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. This year, with a Mormon the GOP standard-bearer, a significant proportion of these once reliable voters are not having any of it.

Yet few mainstream commentators are willing to tackle out loud the subject of religious bigotry’s influence on election outcomes. After all, doesn’t Billy Graham’s endorsement of Mitt Romney mean that religious conservatives pretty much have accepted the latter as the Republican most likely to win?

Keller, who condemned Graham’s acceptance of Romney, disagrees in fiery rhetoric that he wields unsparingly. “On every major spiritual issue of the day, President Obama has proved to be an enemy of God and a true tool of Satan!” he writes on the home page of VotingforJesus.com.

Of Obama’s GOP opponent, he declares, “If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be the fulfillment of his cult’s polygamist, pedophile, racist, con artist, murdering founder Joseph Smith’s ‘White Horse’ prophecy that Romney and all Mormons believe.”

Virulently anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-Mormon and more, Keller spent time in federal prison after being convicted of insider trading. His organization, St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Bill Keller Ministries, has been branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which he has threatened with a defamation lawsuit.

Keller represents the extreme wing of conservative Christian political activists. The rest of us ignore or discount him and them at our peril, because they have deadly serious political ambitions backed by deep pockets and clout.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #142 on: Nov 02, 2012, 08:08 AM »

Economic Update Before The Election Looks Good For Obama

By: Ray Medeiros November 1st, 2012

After listening to the radical Republicans say how bad the economy is, let’s look at the actual numbers that are coming out this week which show modest but steady improvement.

In a report by CNBC, “The private sector created a better-than-expected 158,000 jobs in October, while jobless claims edged lower and productivity rose about as much as expected.”

The jobless claims came in this week at 363,000, a number consistent with modest job growth.

U.S. October ISM manufacturing index rises to 51.7 from 51.5. Chrysler reported the best September since 2007, with a ten percent growth in sales.

The Institute for supply management shows modest growth in the economy. Consumer confidence also rose to 72.2, which is the best number since February 2008, showing once again you are feeling better than you did 4 years ago.

Finally, construction spending also rose 0.6%, which was also inline with expectations.

Yes, this is all good news heading into the election on Tuesday. The last data point will be in on Friday, which is the BLS’s job numbers. I am figuring a static number or a slight increase or decrease in the overall unemployment situation, nothing that is dramatic.


U.S. jobless rate ticks up slightly to 7.9 percent in October

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, November 2, 2012 8:57 EDT

WASHINGTON — The US unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent in October from 7.8 percent the prior month, the government said Friday in a highly anticipated report ahead of the November 6 election.

Though the jobless rate ticked up a notch, the economy added 171,000 jobs in October, well above expectations.

The Labor Department said the unemployment rate was “essentially unchanged” at 7.9 percent, and noted job growth in professional and business services, health care and the retail sector.

The number of unemployed people — 12.3 million — was slightly higher, following a dip in September.

Most analysts had forecast the rise in the unemployment rate, but the job growth far outpaced the 125,000 estimate.

The better-than-expected jobs report serves as the final snapshot on the economy as President Barack Obama battles for re-election next Tuesday in a neck-and-neck race against Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #143 on: Nov 02, 2012, 08:20 AM »

11/01/2012 06:09 PM

The American Enigma: Berlin Unsure about a Possible President Romney

By Severin Weiland

Germans like US President Barack Obama, but what if his challenger Mitt Romney wins next week's election instead? The Republican politician is hard to read when it comes to foreign policy matters, and politicians in Berlin are asking what it would mean for German-American relations.

Germans have long since made up their minds about Mitt Romney. Only 5 percent would give him their vote if they had one, they say.

The result of the most recent poll by Forsa is far from surprising. When America votes, the German heart traditionally beats for the Democratic candidate. To many, the Republicans are suspect: cocky, Christian-conservative, narrow-minded and often hawkish -- at least according to the widespread cliché. Some 92 percent of Germans, the poll found, would vote to return incumbent Barack Obama to the White House.

They aren't allowed to cast a ballot, of course, and are damned to be observers, nervously standing on the sidelines. Obama and Romney are neck-and-neck in the polls, with just days to go before Election Day next Tuesday. And politicians in Berlin have long since begun considering the possibility that Romney may take over the reins of state.

But what would a President Romney mean for Berlin? Frankly, politicians in the German capital aren't sure. The Republican candidate, said Harald Leibrechts, Germany's coordinator for German-American relations, is a "blank page, which makes him difficult to gauge. He is unlikely to be alone in this assessment.

Unclear Positions

Romney has portrayed himself as both a tough guy and a diplomat, but his waffling has confused people both at home and abroad. In his final debate against Obama, he took a conciliatory tone, and it appeared as though he had few policy differences with Obama in places like Syria, Afghanistan and Iran. But only a few months prior, Romney sounded completely different, declaring Russia as America's "number-one geopolitical foe."

His policies on Iran have also been cause for some concern. This summer one of his top foreign policy advisors said Romney would "respect" an Israeli decision to use force against Tehran. Furthermore, Romney's position on the planned withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2014 also remains unclear; he has expressed doubts about the time frame.

In Berlin, the Republican nominee is seen as somewhat of an enigma. Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière, for one, is puzzled, saying during a recent NATO meeting that "no one at the table" could say how the US mission in Afghanistan would play out if there was a change in the White House. And because the allied nations plan to build their strategies around the US model, the Nov. 6 election is extremely important, de Maizière said.

Do German leaders think that Romney would try to return the US to its erstwhile role as global police officer? "I don't believe so," says Philipp Missfelder, foreign policy spokesperson for conservatives in parliament. "The financial situation is so desolate in the US that Romney wouldn't be able to afford" such a role.

Still, in the last TV debate between Obama and Romney, the latter spoke against cuts to the military budget and in favor of building new warships. Could Romney turn back the clock to the days of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, who was reviled in Germany? According to Missfelder, the answer is no. He isn't a bogeyman to be feared, he says, adding that many in Germany mistakenly equate him with the Tea Party movement and its isolationist approach to foreign policy. "Romney is actually a pragmatist," Missfelder says hopefully.

During the campaign, Romney has presented himself as an economic leader and there are tendencies within his party to protect the domestic market. With the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate set to be chosen next week, there is some concern that this "America first" attitude could become stronger. Indeed, Ralf Braml, an expert on US politics with the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin, anticipates protectionist tendencies to mainly eminate from the legislative branch. "Even German and European firms will have difficulties selling their products in the US," he says.

More Military Demands?

Rolf Mützenich, the foreign policy spokesman of the opposition Social Democrats in parliament, believes that a Romney victory would result in an "initial standstill and uncertainty" while the administration went through the drawn-out process of making new appointments. What's more, he fears that if Romney chooses to rely on former advisers from the Bush era, "disagreements could arise regarding not only the issues of Iran and Russia, but also when it comes to respect for the United Nations, international law and disarmament." Likewise, he holds that a Romney administration would most likely not see eye to eye with Germany and its fellow European Union nations when it comes to the global regulation of the financial markets.

Braml, the DGAP expert and author of the book "Der amerikanische Patient" ("The American Patient"), champions the thesis that American's poor socio-economic condition and growing isolationist sentiments will lead it to try to shift the burdens of military actions onto its allies. This view is shared by many in Berlin. Leibrecht, Chancellor Merkel's coordinator for German-American relations, has said that one of the possible consequences of a Romney victory would be calls for augmenting defense budgets. "That is not particularly popular with us," he said, "and we also don't support this request in light of the consolidation and cost-cutting course that has been pursued in Europe."

In any case, whether Obama or Romney wins, CDU politician Missfelder says that Germans will have to get used to one thing: "When it comes to global military actions in crisis zones, the Americans will definitely be coming to us and demanding more in the years to come."


Citizens of China and Japan support Barack Obama for a second term, poll shows

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, November 2, 2012 7:09 EDT

Citizens of China and Japan overwhelmingly support President Barack Obama to win a second term, according to an AFP-Ipsos poll which suggests Mitt Romney’s tough talk on the Asian powers could have dented his image.

The US elections may be a toss-up at home but the survey carried out by Ipsos Hong Kong found a whopping 86 percent of Japanese back the Democrat incumbent compared to only 12.3 percent for Republican party candidate Romney.

Chinese respondents were less emphatic, but still a hefty 63 percent said they wanted Obama to serve out another four years, according to the online poll conducted in September and October.

Analysts said Obama’s record on the economy and security had buttressed his standing in the East, while Romney’s outspoken comments on Beijing’s alleged currency manipulation and Japan’s economic decline may have lost him some friends.

“Asia wants Obama to win the election overall, but China has more supporters of Romney than Japan,” Ipsos Hong Kong associate director Andrew Lam said.

“It is possible that Romney’s strong stand on currency and trade, as well as his plan to have a stronger military capability in the Pacific, has led the Chinese to believe it is better to stay with the status quo.

“For Japan, Romney’s low popularity is possibly linked to his earlier public comment about Japan being an economy in decline. Japanese have strong national pride, and could react negatively toward this kind of public remark.”

The Chinese are around three times more likely to approve of Romney despite his more hawkish stance on trade and military spending, according to the AFP-Ipsos survey which will be publicly released on Monday.

Romney’s popularity was highest among older Chinese and in less developed “Tier Two” cities, inland population centres which have not industrialised at the pace of the more economically liberal special economic zones such as Shanghai.

International relations expert Chen Qi, of China’s Tsinghua University, said some Chinese held the Republican party in high regard based on its history of engagement with Beijing going back to president Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit.

But he said many other Chinese did not look favourably on Romney’s background as a wealthy capitalist.

“Many people feel that Obama looks after the bottom level of society, with his policies such as medical reform, and a lot of Chinese people support that… There is some suspicion of rich businessmen entering politics,” Chen said.

Romney has repeatedly vowed to brand Beijing a “currency manipulator” on his first day in office, as a way to address China’s huge trade surplus with the United States.

“They’re taking jobs, and we’ve been looking the other way for too long,” he said on the campaign trail last month.

Critics in the United States and other developed economies accuse China of keeping its currency deliberately low to flood the world with exports of inexpensive goods, devastating manufacturing industries elsewhere.

The Obama administration has repeatedly urged Beijing to let the yuan appreciate, but has stopped short of declaring China a currency manipulator — a designation that could trigger sanctions and perhaps an all-out trade war.

The AFP-Ipsos survey showed that most Japanese (81.8 percent) and Chinese (58.3 percent) thought Obama would be the best US president for Asian economic growth, rejecting Romney’s claims to be the stronger economic manager.

Asked which candidate would be better for peace and security in Asia, 85.3 percent of Japanese and 56.3 percent of Chinese said Obama.

Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Tokyo’s Waseda University, said Obama’s efforts to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were popular in Japan.

“The Bush administration took a kind of coercive approach to Japan in mustering support for the Japan-US alliance when it dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq. But Obama has not been so forcible,” he told AFP in Tokyo.

Obama’s so-called “pivot” to Asia has been a key strategy of his administration’s foreign policy, a move that China has eyed with suspicion but other Asian states have broadly welcomed as a balance to Beijing’s influence.

Despite the high stakes involved, the poll showed many more Chinese (47.7 percent) are indifferent to the US election outcome than Japanese (30.3 percent).

Analysts said that with a once-a-decade leadership transition due to take place in Beijing shortly after the US vote, this was not surprising. There was also a sense of disappointment after the excitement of Obama’s 2008 victory.

“The election is the most important to the Japanese, possibly because the US has been their most important long-term ally diplomatically and militarily,” said Lam.

“With their rising political and economic power, the Chinese may regard themselves as less reliant on any single nation including the US, thus the indifference.”

The poll, which surveyed around 1,000 people in each country, has a margin of error of five percent.


Israelis back Mitt Romney in upcoming presidential election but Palestinians are indifferent

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, November 2, 2012 7:55 EDT

Israel may be openly hoping that Republican challenger Mitt Romney will end up stealing the presidency from Barack Obama, but for the Palestinians it makes little difference who takes over the White House.

With the US presidential race drawing to a close, Israelis have come out strongly in favour of the Republican nominee who they believe is likely to be a better friend to the Jewish state than President Obama.

Figures published in a Peace Index poll showed a clear majority of Jewish Israelis — 57 percent — believe that when it comes to Israel’s interests, Romney would be the best president, compared with 22 percent for Obama.

“Israelis are a bit suspicious of Obama and prefer Romney,” said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israeli relations at Bar Ilan University.

“This is because of Obama’s tough attitude — personally to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but also on the diplomatic level towards Israel,” he said.

Netanyahu himself “would prefer Romney, because he feels that relations with Obama were tense, that there was not enough cooperation — neither personally nor nationally,” Gilboa explained.

Ties have never been easy between Netanyahu and Obama — their public meetings have often been visibly tense, marked by awkward body language, and the two have differed over key issues, most recently over how to handle the Iran nuclear file.

While both Obama and Romney were on the same page in their attitude towards Israel’s security needs, there was a significant difference between the two on the key issue of a nuclear Iran, Gilboa said.

Netanyahu has pushed for a much more hardline approach that could include pre-emptive military action, while Obama has preferred to allow diplomacy and sanctions dissuade Iran from building the bomb.

From Netanyahu’s perspective, “Obama is against any Israeli use of force, and won’t use force himself” against Iran, he said.

“Romney won’t use force himself, but would let Netanyahu carry out a military action if he chose to do so.”

Despite some Israeli media and conservative US Jews portraying Obama as giving Israel the cold shoulder, his administration has done a lot for Israel’s security over the past four years, said Peter Medding, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“The issue really for Israel is, irrespective of who you want, security or defence,” he told AFP, adding there was “plenty of evidence” to show the Obama administration had done a great deal to bolster Israel’s security.

Although it was no secret that Netanyahu would prefer Romney to be elected, the main issue was a president who would watch out for Israel’s back, he said.

“The consensus is that the personal relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is not good, but having said that, you then look at the record of what Obama and his administration have done,” he said.

“If you’re engaged in politics and statesmanship at that level, you have to relate to the issues as they are and not to the persons who are representing them.”

On the Palestinian side, there is little enthusiasm about the election.

With peace negotiations on hold for more than two years, Obama no longer inspires the enthusiasm he once did among Palestinians who say the identity of the next US president will not change anything.

“The situation in the United States is known — they will support Israel whoever the next American president is,” said Muhanned Abdelhamid, a political analyst from the West Bank town of Ramallah.

“The United States adapts itself to the Israeli reality and the nature of the government in Israel and not the other way around, which means US positions towards Israel are the same whether it is Netanyahu’s Israel or (Avigdor) Lieberman’s,” he said referring to Israel’s ultranationalist foreign minister.

Any optimism sparked by Obama’s election four years ago has long since dissipated in the cold light of weakening US stands on issues like Israeli settlement building, said Abdel Majid Sweilem, a political scientist from Al-Quds University.

“I don’t think there is any possibility that the United States will drastically change its policy in the Middle East from what we are used to, whoever is the next US president,” he said.

Earlier this year, Romney came under fire for saying the Palestinians had “no interest whatsoever” in peace and indicating he would not make any serious bid as president to solve the Middle East conflict.

But Gilboa suggested that a victory by Romney, who was unlikely to exert much pressure on Israel over negotiations or its settlement building policy, could actually help rekindle the stagnant peace process.

“The Palestinians thought that Obama would do the work for them — that they’d get a deal in which Israel would make concessions, but they would not have to,” he said.

“That’s why they were so insistent all the time.”

But if they see Romney elected president, it could have the opposite effect. “They could say: ‘We should enter negotiations after all’,” he said.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #144 on: Nov 03, 2012, 07:21 AM »

Terrifying Video: ‘News on the 100th Day of a Romney Presidency’

By: Sarah Jones November 2nd, 2012

Yikes. Elections do have consequences. It’s not like the Obama campaign to use fear tactics, so their terrifying new video showing the news on the 100th day of a Romney presidency is a departure in tone.

What’s at stake, you ask? Watch here, but steel yourself first.

CHICAGO says, “What would lead the news on the 100th day of a Mitt Romney presidency? OFA’s new “breaking newscast” has the top stories Americans could expect to see if Romney gets to push his version of “real change” as president: a tax cut for millionaires and corporations is signed into law as taxes rise for the middle-class; Chinese manufacturing is booming as American jobs are shipped overseas; Roe v. Wade threatened by the confirmation of President Romney’s first nominee to the Supreme Court; Medicare is turned into a voucher system; and Obamacare is repealed, leaving many Americans with preexisting conditions without insurance.

Elections have consequences, and this is the “real change” that Romney is promising. It’s the kind of change that Americans simply can’t afford. In four days, Americans will decide if they want to continue moving forward with President Obama, or if Romney gets to deliver the change he has promised, taking us back to the same failed policies of the past.”

Tax cuts for millionaires, Roe V Wade on the docket to be overturned, no FEMA, Medicare being turned into vouchers — not a pretty picture. While Romney probably couldn’t actually achieve all of these goals, they are fair representations of positions he has taken at one time (and later denied, avoided, walked back, lied about, etc.).

You might want to share this video with undecideds. Sometimes it takes a little exaggeration or imagination to get people to wake up. After all, this does represent what a Romney presidency would look like without any obstacles (read Democrats) in the road.

Click to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kY9_WLLuhB4
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #145 on: Nov 03, 2012, 07:24 AM »

Obama Explains Change to Romney with Three Words: Made in America

By: Sarah Jones November 2nd, 2012

Mitt Romney is selling change along with that secret tax plan in the used car lot where trickle down lemons hide in shame. The President is having none of that. Today he told supporters that change is when everyone has a fair shot, “That’s the future I see for this entire country. Making stuff again. Selling it all around the world. Products stamped with three proud words: Made in America.”

Watch the President’s remarks from a rally in Springfield, Ohio today:


I know what real change looks like, because I’ve fought for it. Right alongside you. And after all we’ve been through together, we sure can’t give up on now.

Let me tell you about the change we need over the next four years. Real change. Real change is a county where every American has a shot at a great education. You know, this school that we’re in is an example of a school that is making incredible reforms. The Race to the Top program that we put together – this is one of the winners of Race to the Top right here. So, we know how to raise standards and recruit great teachers and become more creative in the classroom. And our kids are going to succeed.

But you can’t tell me that more teachers won’t help grow our economy. Don’t tell me that students who can’t afford to go to college should just borrow more money from their parents. That wasn’t an option for me, probably wasn’t an option for a lot of you. That’s why I want to cut the growth of tuition in half over the next ten years. That’s why I want to recruit 100,000 math and science teachers so that our kids don’t fall behind the rest of the world. That’s why I want to train two million Americans at our community colleges with the skills that businesses are looking for right now. That’s what change is. That’s my plan for the future. That’s the America we’re fighting for in this election. Forward.

Change comes when we live up to this country’s legacy of innovation. The nice thing about the auto industry, we’re not just building cars again, we’re building better cars again, more advanced cars, better technology – cars that by the middle of the next decade will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. Today, there are workers that are building long-lasting batteries and wind turbines all across the country and right here in Ohio. These are jobs that didn’t exist four years ago. I don’t want a tax code that subsidizes oil company profits when oil companies are already making a lot of money; I want to support the clean energy jobs of tomorrow. I want to support the new technology that is gonna cut our oil imports in half by 2020. I don’t want a tax code that rewards companies for creating jobs overseas; I want to reward companies that are taking root right here in Springfield, Ohio. Right here in Lordstown and Toledo and Youngstown. I am confident about a renaissance, a resurgence of American manufacturing and that’s good for the entire economy. That’s the future I see for this entire country. Making stuff again. Selling it all around the world. Products stamped with three proud words: Made in America.


Oh, POW right to the kisser. Made in America. Made in America. Mitt Romney is hiding in his Sensata bunker right about now. While Obama is delivering remarks about making things here in America, Matt Romney (Mitt’s son) is in Russia conducting business and sending secret notes to Putin assuring him that Mitt doesn’t mean the things he says on the campaign trail. USA! USA!

Seriously, this is the President in the final days leading up to the campaign. I’d like to remind everyone that this is the same guy who some call weak when he’s governing. Does he seem weak? No. Not unless you’re drinking Fox Koolaid. Let us remember that campaigning Obama is not governing Obama. He is smart enough to know the difference and so might we be.

If he is re-elected next week, we have a shot at actually making things here in America. If we fall to the low information voters, we can kiss Made in America goodbye.

Chicago adds, “Mitt Romney is pledging that he would bring “real change” if he’s elected, but we know all he would do is bring back the failed policies of the past that crashed the economy and punished the middle class in the first place. That’s the kind of change that the American people simply can’t afford. Americans know what real change looks like. That’s because they’ve fought for it alongside President Obama. America has come too far to turn back now, and as the President reminded voters in Springfield, Ohio earlier today, there’s still more work to do. That’s why President Obama is fighting for the change that gets folks back to work and strengthens the middle class by making smart investments in energy, education and training, growing small businesses, promoting technology and innovation, and reducing the deficit in a balanced, bipartisan way.”

Made in the USA. Take that, Mitt Caymans cash stashing, shipping jobs to China, not paying all your US taxes Romney.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #146 on: Nov 03, 2012, 07:25 AM »

Obama Leads Romney in 14 of 16 Swing State Polls Released Today

By: Jason Easley November 2nd, 2012

Did Hurricane Sandy shift momentum to Obama? From New Hampshire to Colorado, President Obama leads Mitt Romney in 13 of the 15 polls released today with two polls showing ties.

As we head into the final weekend of campaigning, it looks like momentum is moving towards the incumbent. In Colorado, the Reuters/Ipsos poll of the state shows the candidates tied, 46%-46%. A PPP poll of the state has Obama leading Romney, 50%-46%, and a Denver Post/SurveyUSA poll has Obama leading Romney, 47%-45%. Reuters/Ipsos has Obama leading Romney 48%-46% in Florida, and a Gravis poll has Obama leading Romney 49%-45% in Iowa. Republican and Democratic pollsters both agree that Obama leads Michigan. Republican pollster Rasmussen has Obama leading Romney 52%-47%, and Democratic pollster PPP has Obama leading in Michigan, 52%-46%. A new Mellman poll has Obama leading Romney 50%-44% in Nevada, and a New England College poll shows Obama leading Romney 50%-44% in New Hampshire.

President Obama leads Mitt Romney in three of the four new polls of Ohio. Obama leads Romney 50%-47% in the latest CNN/ORC poll, 47%-45% in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, and 50%-46% in the We Ask America poll. Republican pollster Rasmussen has Ohio tied at 49%-49%. In Virginia, Obama leads Romney 48%-45% according to Reuters/Ipsos, and 49%-48% in the We Ask America poll. Mitt Romney was hoping to turn Wisconsin red, but according to We Ask America, Obama holds a seven point lead over Romney 52%-45%.

What should be very troubling to Republicans is that of the 16 swing state polls taken Obama is at 50% or better in eight of them. Mitt Romney is not over 50% in any of today’s polls. Another three polls on the list have Obama at 49%. This means that in 11 of the 16 polls released today Barack Obama is either one point away from, or at 50% or better.

It is important to remember that these polls are only indicators of which way the political winds are blowing. They aren’t evidence of victory. In fact, President Obama holds small, but significant leads in most of these polls. If voters don’t come out and vote, small polling leads can transform into losses without supporters casting their ballots.

However, the consensus within these polls suggests that momentum is on the president’s side. The trendline will become more visible over the final weekend of polling, but it is very possible that voters are following their electoral historical precedent and moving towards the incumbent as the election approaches.

So far, that late breaking wave that the Romney campaign is counting on hasn’t materialized.

Early voting may be putting Iowa and Nevada out of reach for Romney. Obama is piling up enough of a margin during Ohio’s early voting that Romney will require at least 53% of the election day vote in order to be competitive in the state. To put Romney’s task in Ohio in perspective, the Republican will have to improve on his current poll performance by 4-8 points to even have a chance at winning the state.

We’ll see on Tuesday if Obama’s excellent performance after Hurricane Sandy gave him extra momentum heading into election day, but it is becoming clear that while Romney is limping towards the finish line, Obama is surging into the final weekend of the 2012 campaign.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #147 on: Nov 03, 2012, 07:27 AM »

The Republican Hail Mary Pass: Racist Mailers and More Vote Suppression

By: Adalia Woodbury November 2nd, 2012

Romney used every deceitful trick in the book, albeit with a little help from other people who believe in an America that should be run like a corporation, rather than led as a country.

As I reported previously, Romney’s poll watchers are being trained to deceive voters and election officials in Wisconsin. However, the deception doesn’t end in Wisconsin. That would be asking way too much of the Romney Campaign.

Romney workers in Iowa were told to ask for voters’ ID.

Here is the Romney campaign’s training video for its poll watchers in Iowa.

There is one problem with that. Iowa doesn’t have a voter ID law. Actually, there are many problems with that, as there has been with the nationwide effort by Republicans led by Romney to suppress the vote.

With everything from ALEC inspired legislation, most of which was struck down by the courts because these laws had a disproportionately adverse effect on Racial minorities, students, the elderly, single mothers and single women in general; people who work for a living.

It’s no coincidence that these identifiable groups are more likely to vote Democrat, than for the corporatist/theocratic alliance of the Republican Party.

Most elections are about a choice between leaders and wannabes. This election is no exception.

Our choices are very clear cut. Either we can choose to a real leader in Barack Obama, or Corporate America’s wannabe, Mitt Romney.

Either we can chose a leader, in Barack Obama, who may not tell us everything we want to hear, then moments later deny he said it. The other choice Mitt Romney who changes his mind about his strongly held convictions = sometimes within minutes of stating them.

This election is just as much about who the candidates believe should have a voice in deciding our future. This is about so much more than a contest between two candidates and their immediate policies. It goes to the heart of what we value as a nation.

You can tell a lot about a candidate’s vision by their views and actions on voting rights.

Again, there is a sharp contrast between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. While Barack Obama and Democrats have fought for your right to vote, Mitt Romney and the Republicans used every trick in the book (and made up a few more) to silence you.

Throughout this campaign, we have documented the laws that Republican legislatures passed in the name of suppressing your vote at the polls.

Some expressed contempt for the notion that their state should have to “contort” the system to make voting equally accessible to all voters.

Whether it was new voter ID requirements, restrictions on registration drives, early and absentee voting, Republicans offered disingenuous claims that the purpose of these measures was to protect your vote from alleged in person voter fraud.

Yet, when given a chance to provide evidence of voter fraud in a court of law, Republicans always came up empty. It seems that while they have no problem lying to the people of America, the courtroom was as effective, if not more so, than a polygraph machine.

They hired Nathan Sproul to manipulate voter registration in a manner that they hoped would deny Democrats their vote, when the voter suppression laws failed. (At least the few that were not struck down by the courts.)

Voters who survive the first endurance test to the vote, will be met by right-wing foot soldiers, be they from the Romney campaign or from the Koch Brother financed True to Vote and similar organizations. While claiming to be “concerned citizens” whose purpose is to intimidate you into silence, be it with false challenges to your vote, or delaying your vote by virtue of raising false challenges.

These individuals do not have standing to ask anything of you. They sure as hell don’t have a right to see your ID (whether or not your state has a voter ID law.) Don’t let them steal your vote, or anyone else’s. Once you pass the Republican endurance test for voting, the struggle ends if you live in a state that uses paper ballots. If you live in a state that gives you a choice between a paper ballot and a machine, always choose the paper ballots.

If you live in a state with machine ballots only, there is reason to be concerned about whether the machines were rigged. If you live in Ohio, this is worth noting.

According to The Free Press:

Untested, uncertified and “experimental” election tabulation software was installed on ES&S machines in 39 districts.

You’ll just love the justifications offered by Ohio’s officials. According to Election Counsel, Brandi Laser Seske,

    Its function is to aid in the reporting of results that are already uploaded into the county’s system. The software formats results that have already been uploaded by the county into a format that can be read by the Secretary of State’s election night reporting system.”

    “Because the software is not 1) involved in the tabulation or casting of ballots (or in communicating between systems involved in the tabulation or casting of ballots) or 2) a modification to a certified system, the BVME [Board of Voting Machine Examiners] was not required to review the software.

According to Seske, “It is not part of the certified Unity system, so it did not require federal testing.”

Because the software is not 1) involved in the tabulation or casting of ballots (or in communicating between systems involved in the tabulation or casting of ballots) or 2) a modification to a certified system, the BVME [Board of Voting Machine Examiners] was not required to review the software.”

In English, Seske is saying that the “experimental” software will transmit “custom” election results to the Secretary of State’s office, bypassing normal election night reporting methods.

Moreover, it’s pretty clear that Seske is trying to justify a deliberate attempt to skirt Federal election law to benefit the Republicans.

Considering that the Secretary of State in question is Jon Husted, it’s safe to say this custom reporting serves a partisan purpose. After all, Husted’s idea of election integrity would ideally only count Republican votes. The fact that he found an excuse to avoid certification, considering Husted’s history, suggests that he is up to no good.

As noted by Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis,

    The software, although not communicating actual ballot information, facilitates communication between systems upon which votes are tabulated and stored. Although the software purports to not modify the tabulation system software, it is itself a modification to the whole tabulation system. This is why certification and testing is required in all cases.”

The Romney campaign has more post-Halloween tricks for Ohio – including their latest flier, complete with
with Chinese food containers and chopsticks, all the better to tar Democrats with.

Sam Stein explains the symbolism behind this blatantly racist mailer.

    Anti-China sentiment can be politically persuasive in the Midwest, which is still stinging from years of manufacturing jobs being outsourced. It’s why President Barack Obama’s super PAC spent the summer focusing on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, accusing him specifically of being a pioneer in the field of outsourcing. It’s why the Obama campaign soon followed suit. And it’s why the Romney campaign, in the closing weeks, has launched surreptitious ads suggesting that, under the president’s watch, America’s auto companies are sending production to China

The mailer in Ohio adds that extra ugh factor with the takeout container with money, chopsticks and the stereotypical Chinese font.

Well, no one can accuse the Republicans of being classy, nor can one accuse Mitt Romney of being a leader.

No one can compel you to vote. That is your choice and your choice only. Just bear in mind that if you choose to stay home, you will be giving the plutocratic/theocratic alliance that is the Romney Republican Party exactly what they want.

Using your vote matters because it is your chance to choose between leader and someone who views you as nothing more than a means to an end – whether that be his personal profits or his personal quest for power.

True leaders comfort the downtrodden, rather than talk about them disparagingly, when they think no one is listening.

True leaders give a hand up to the less fortunate because a strong society is built by all of us – not one per cent, 2 per cent or 10%.

A true leader listens to all voices, – not only to his cheering section. When a true leader talks of bipartisanship, they mean working in a cooperative spirit for the good of the country.

A united country is built when everyone has a stake in it as citizens, not because they have the money to buy a voice. Politicians who seek unity while listening to those who mirror their views create animosity.

A leader has the judgment to recognize that on matters of National Security, it’s a good idea to get the facts first. A politician sees tragedies like Benghazi as a political opportunity.

A leader works with others be they members of another political party within his country or leaders of allied nations across the world. The wannabe in this election alienated Democrats while serving as governor and found a way to offend our closest ally at the Olympics. Romney’s actions show that his idea of cooperation ends with talking about it.

Leaders take responsibility for their actions, while wannabes blame everyone but themselves.

Leaders see their position as one in which they were entrusted to use power wisely and to the benefit of the people they lead. Wannabes sees the power and status like shiny objects – without showing any interest in understanding the responsibilities of the job.

Leaders insure opportunity is available to everyone who wants to take them. Wannabes see opportunity as a privilege for those who already have everything.

If you want a leader, there really is only one choice in the election – Barack Obama.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #148 on: Nov 03, 2012, 09:43 AM »

November 03, 2012 07:00 AM

Matt and Tagg Romney Round Up Their Oligarchs For Mitt's Presidency

By karoli

It wasn't that long ago that Mitt Romney was making the impassioned claim that Russia was our number one geopolitical foe and we should be aiming our military might at seeing to it they're cowed and put in their place. Of course, Romney's Reagan-era world view didn't stop him from making the big bucks helping Big Tobacco do business over there, but then, business is business and politics is just better business, right?

Evidently Tagg and Matt Romney agree with that philosophy. They are unafraid of the bogeymen in Russia. Quite the contrary. They welcome the opportunity to bring Russian oligarchs into the fold of vulture capitalism inhabited by American oligarchs, whether real estate or corporate equity just as their father did with his Latin American oligarchs in order to make his fortune.

Let's start with Matt, who took a little jaunt to Russia for the sole purpose of courting oligarchs to his newest venture. Like father, like son. Via New York Times:

    Matt Romney, a son of the Republican presidential nominee, traveled to Moscow this week seeking Russian investors for his California-based real estate firm just days before his father is to wrap up a campaign in which he has vowed to take a tougher stance with the Kremlin.

    Mr. Romney, the second-oldest son of Mitt Romney, met with Russians whom he hoped to convince to invest in his company, Excel Trust, which owns shopping centers across the United States, the firm said. Although the company’s focus has been solely domestic, it said it has begun exploring international opportunities to raise funds.

    Mr. Romney’s trip a week before the presidential election underscored the complex relationship between his family’s business and the political campaign. Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama for being too soft on Russia, calling it “our No. 1 geopolitical foe” and promising to confront President Vladimir V. Putin’s government with “more backbone” if elected on Tuesday.

Now, don't be shocked by this, but Matt actually told his oligarchs they shouldn't worry if Dad is elected, because his rhetoric is just a bunch of bluster.

    But while in Moscow, Mr. Romney told a Russian known to be able to deliver messages to Mr. Putin that despite the campaign rhetoric, his father wants good relations if he becomes president, according to a person informed about the conversation.

    Matt Romney traveled to Moscow with Gary B. Sabin, the chairman and chief executive of Excel Trust, which is based in San Diego. Greg Davis, the firm’s vice president of capital markets and communications, said the trip was unrelated to the campaign.

FLASHBACK: Right wing freaks out over Obama reassuring Putin while his mic was still hot.

Excel Trust invests in real estate; specifically, commercial real estate with big box stores like Staples and Sports Authority. There's a surprise. I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that Gary Sabin is also Mormon, either. Not that there's some secret Mormon thing going on with respect to Russia or anything, but really, does anyone think it's a good idea to sell California real estate to Russian oligarchs?

Onward to Tagg Romney now. Lee Fang first reported about Tagg's Solamere investments and Mitt's $10 million initial investment, and how it stands to be a conduit into a Romney White House. Solamere, as a fund of funds, could also be viewed as a billionaire aggregator, rounding up Mitt's billionaires and setting them up for pretty profits if Mitt were elected president.

    What is known is that Solamere’s private equity partners are eager to influence the federal government. Three of the firms listed in the Solamere prospectus—Sun Capital Partners, TPG Capital and TA Associates—are currently financing a lobbying campaign under a trade group called the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC), which is seeking to influence a number of tax and regulatory decisions.

    The PEGCC has spent nearly $5.8 million on federal lobbying over the past three years, and untold millions this year on a public relations campaign in swing states to improve the image of private equity—a strategy seen as designed to benefit Romney’s campaign. One of the primary concerns of the PEGCC and many private equity firms is that the carried interest loophole, which allows wealthy investment managers to be taxed at only the 15 percent capital gains rate, may be closed. The group has also fired off at least a dozen letters and held meetings with regulators to complain about the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill’s mandates, ranging from new registration requirements to limits on commodity speculation.

The Seattle Times has more:

    Fracking and other energy interests have put their money with Tagg. So have military contractors. Dental-management companies have been targeted for pressuring dentists to perform expensive work on low-income children, the bill sent to Medicaid. They’re in Solamere. So are the investor-owners of for-profit colleges, which Romney has praised from the stump. Known for providing weak education, the for-profit schools draw 85 percent of their revenues from taxpayers. Romney a small-government president? My foot.

So, let's add all of this up. Matt Romney goes to Russia to round up Russian oligarchs for investment in California real estate funds. Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick are tied up with Solamere Equity, a "fund of funds" that has private equity partners lobbying to influence tax and regulatory decisions, and some of those investors are military contractors, energy investors, and fracking proponents.

This would not end well for we, the people.
Most Active Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 10871

« Reply #149 on: Nov 04, 2012, 06:10 AM »

November 03, 2012 03:00 PM

2012: A Truly Historic Election

By Mike Lux

There was, rightly, a massive amount of discussion about the 2008 Presidential election being a very historic election. All by itself, the election of the first African-American President guaranteed that- and then there was Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy, Sarah Palin’s VP candidacy, and the massive financial collapse happening just weeks before election day. Heavy duty historical business was going down in the fall of 2008, and it was remarkable to see it happening.

But history calls to us in every election year, and there are some big things moving and shaking this time around, too. On the one side we hear the echoes of John C. Calhoun, the Social Darwinists and Robber Barons of the 1880s, the people who cried out that Social Security and the New Deal would lead us to slavery, the Southerners who said that states' rights trumped civil rights, and the selfishness-is-a-virtue-charity-is-weakness philosophy of Ayn Rand. On the other side, we hear the call for community and equal opportunity that is reminiscent of the Pilgrims, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Martin Luther King. We should choose to be on the right side of history.

You may think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. The values that these two political parties have laid out are as starkly different as anything I've seen in my lifetime. Even with Romney's etch-a-sketch turn to the center since the first debate, he and his running mate Paul Ryan, along with their fellow Republicans further down the ticket running with them, have made it clear throughout this election what their guiding philosophy would be, and it is as hard core extreme right as any since maybe Cal Coolidge in 1924. We've had a Romney-Ryan budget proposal that eviscerates every program that benefits the poor and middle class; privatizes and voucherizes Medicare; block grants and slashes Medicaid; explodes the military budget; and showers huge new tax cuts on the wealthy and big corporations. We've had Romney pushing to privatize FEMA and disaster relief; we've had a frightening and bizarre series of references to rape that sound like they are coming straight out of the history of the 1800s; we've had anti-immigrant rhetoric that sounds like it is from the 1920s; and we have had videos from both Ryan and Romney talking about how huge percentages of Americans (30% in Ryan's case, and more famously 47% in Romney's) are lazy, dependent non-contributors to society, an idea straight from the pages of Ayn Rand and the Social Darwinists. A Romney election would be historical, alright, but very much the wrong kind of history.

The Republican definition of freedom has become that of Calhoun and the Southern plantation elite of the 1800s. Freedom to them was the freedom to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted to do it, and they were quite explicit about that. When Romney and Ryan extol freedom, wanting to lift the burden of regulation and taxes from those job creators on Wall Street, wanting to celebrate the "makers" (wealthy people) in contrast with the "takers" (those folk who get Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, veterans' benefits, and the like), they are echoing Calhoun's celebration of the planter elite.

Thankfully, though, there is another tradition in American history- and it started very early. Pilgrim founder John Winthrop, ironically the same City on a Hill letter writer conservatives get so excited about quoting when talking about the idea of American exceptionalism, said this about the idea of America: "We must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor, and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body." The founders at the constitutional convention were part of that same tradition, proclaiming that these United States were one people: E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. The Presidents from later generations who history deems our greatest Presidents ever- Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt- carried on in the same tradition as well. They saw this country as a big united family, indivisible, one people whose fates were tied together, and they stood up to the powers that be, whether slave owners or big rapacious corporations, that were exploiting us and ripping us apart. Martin Luther King saw the same thing: that we were one people who should be sitting down at the table of brotherhood together, that we were "inextricably linked in a garment of destiny".

Now I am not suggesting that President Obama should be compared with those men, but his philosophical underpinnings clearly come from the same foundation. Here he is yesterday, making the historical argument:

History calls to us again in this election. It's an old values debate, begun between the planters who came to these shores in the South and the Pilgrims who came to New England in the 1600s. It continues today, in this election. When our country has made progress, when it has gone forward, it has been when the leaders who believed in community, and that we were one people who would rise and fall together, were in charge. When we have chosen a more selfish vision of America, such as when conservatives brought us the Great Depression, or when George W Bush was in office for the 8 years at the start of this century, most of us have suffered while a few became incredibly wealthy. Let's choose to be on the right side of history in 2012. Go vote, and make sure all your friends do too.

Click to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=htCWerpalU0
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up
Jump to: