Goodnight Mittens

Well with less than 48 hours to go until election day it's crunch time. Let me start by saying this has been the most horrible presidential campaign I have ever seen in my lifetime. While neither candidate gave concrete visions for the future, The Romney campaign shattered every record in the book with regard to the truth. This man has been a political chameleon that could disappear on a plaid shirt. I have never seen someone have so many positions, on so many issues, and use the kind of political shape shifting he uses, to have the politically expedient answer for whatever audience he was addressing at the moment. The mans one and only core belief is to say or do anything to get elected.

So how does he get away with it? First, way to many Americans don't know whether he's telling the truth or not. Nor do they have the inclination to find out. It is a political calculation driven by the "low information voter" who bases his/her vote on some political campaign sound bite, or slanted media outlet that feeds them a steady stream of misinformation that these people devour. Second, at least as far as the Right is concerned, don't kid yourself, there is no groundswell of love for Mitt Romney to be President. He is the embodiment of Grover Norquist's puppet to be manipulated to simply sign conservative legislation, start the neo-cons next war, and do whatever other bidding they have in mind. Third, The vast majority of those voting for Mitt Romney are not voting FOR Romney, they are voting AGAINST Obama. They don't care if he lies, begs, borrows or steals, as long as he gets Barack Obama out of the White House. Their campaign doesn't have to be dictated by fact checkers, because they're not interested in the facts, because they argue with the facts. They have become masters of making an argument of the truth.

Look you know all the arguments, you know what the President stands for. As for Mr. Romney, well tomorrow is another day, and that brings yet another opportunity to muddy the waters. Each and every day of this campaign, we have gotten a little farther away from who Mitt Romney truly is, and what he truly believes. He has gambled on a strategy of flip flops, distortions, and outright lies, and in each and every instance did it without shame, or fear of the consequences. He built his run for the White House as the Anti-Obama, and that's not going to do it.

 

Obama-Biden          Romney-Ryan

290                            248

 

 

My 2012 election prediction, as well as, my final blog looks like this:

 

The final electoral college vote above is how I'm going to call it. Virginia is extremely close and could very easily go either way. In any event President Obama is going to win re-election and it's going to be nighty night for Mittens.

 

On a personal note I would like to thank all of you who have been faithful readers of my rants for the last 3 1/2 years. I hope you won't miss me too much, but the fact is folks haven't been reading like they used to, so I'll just keep it all inside for now. Thank you again for you support, and if you do nothing else, get out and VOTE on election day!

 

 

Final Debate Shows Romney's Weakness In Foreign Policy

Well the final debate is over, and we now enter the 2 week home stretch toward election day. The third and final debate last night, showed us a number of things. First, President Obama's command of the facts allowed him to give detailed answers to difficult questions. He was forceful, and articulate, in once again calling Romney out on his ever changing, and wide variety of positions. The President showed a better command of the subject matter, and his 4 years of Presidential experience in foreign affairs shined through.

Romney was generic, and spoke in generalities, which helped to highlight Romney's foreign policy weakness. For the first hour of the debate he basically parroted, or agreed with everything President Obama proposed. He left a number of his positions at the door, many of which he openly contradicted. He wasn't as confident in this debate, and spent as much time as he could either agreeing with the President, or rambling about some abstract basic foreign policy principal. He was like a man trapped in the rapids, just trying to stay afloat until the end.

The fact that Romney abandon his long pronounced foreign policy positions comes as no surprise. He continued to play the politically expedient lump of clay, molding himself into what he thinks the American people want to hear. The problem is he has 6 years of running for President that tells a very different story. When you have to consistently defend a multitude of positions over that long a period of time, the video tape speaks for itself. It smacks at Romney's ethically bankrupt political theory to do, or say, whatever it takes to get the White House. Say whatever, and let the fact checkers fight it out. A shrewd political calculation that plays to our nations army of low information voters who take Romney at his word. The proof of this is how tight the race has become since the first debate. Obama's first effort allowed Romney back in the game, when he was just about D.O.A..

However, despite the media frenzy that has the "popular vote" in a dead heat. In the "electoral vote" where it counts, Obama's lead has diminished, but not enough to turn the tide. Romney has always had a much more difficult path to the 270 electoral votes needed to win, and nothing at this point, has allowed him to inflict enough damage to change that. If the election was held today Obama would win. I don't see anything happening in the next 2 weeks to change that outcome.

Obama Takes Control In Second Debate

The President and Mitt Romney went head to head again last night, with a very different result from their first meeting. The President came prepared and ready for battle, and it showed. The President took the offensive early and never let up. It's to bad the President didn't bring his A game to the first debate, because with this performance as a follow up, Romney would be finished. Be that as it may, the stark difference in both style and substance from the President had Romney on his heals at times.

Romney once again tried to draw another pretty picture with invisible ink, but the President was ready this time, and the message lost its substance. Romney was a broken record trying desperately to concentrate on the economy, often repeating the same points over and over. His predilection to play by his own set of rules also made him look overbearing, and obnoxious. Early on he seemed quick to challenge the President, but as the debate wore on, Romney retreated to his chair either unwilling, or unable to respond to the President. He also tried to directly address the President, but his attacks came off as desperate and disrespectful.

As for the commentator, CNN's Candy Crowley, while she got good reviews from her media counterparts, I thought she lost control to many times. She let both candidates, but especially Romney, speak long after their time was finished. Allowing Romney to try and dominate the clock. However, this time his efforts fell short. Just once I would like a commentator to force the candidates to play by the rules, instead of letting the debate degrade into a shouting match.

Result: Obama was under great pressure last night to give a good performance, I think he did it. He was cool, calm, and collected, but came armed to tackle whatever Romney threw his way. I thought he was particularly strong when he called Romney out regarding the attack in Libya. He took responsibility for the situation, and slammed Romney for trying to play cheap political theater when the country was mourning the loss of four foreign service members. He called Romney's remarks "offensive" trying to suggest the President was somehow dismissive of the event he rightly called a terror attack. Then at the close, when Romney declared his support for 100% of Americans, he set up a text book close for Obama. The President countering with the last word, basically saying he's for 100% of Americans on a debate stage, but behind closed doors in actuality he thinks 47% of Americans are victims and deadbeats. It was a strong night for the President, and as far as I'm concerned, a big win.

Biden Strikes Back

So now that Joe Biden has thrown a big bucket of water on all the liberals who have been running around with their hair on fire this week, we can get back to the stark choices of this campaign. In a feisty 90 minute debate, It was clear right out of the blocks that Joe Biden put the wood to his Republican counter-part. Biden was animated, used facts, and called Ryan out on the non-sense Romney got away with in the first debate. Bottom line, Biden did what he had to do to stop the momentum shift Romney gained last week.

Ryan was scripted, stiff, drank enough water to drown a camel, and continued to push an economic plan that doesn't pass the math test, or the give the details needed to explain that fuzzy math. His lack of foreign policy experience was no match for Biden's years of experience, and it showed. He agreed with the draw down in Afghanistan, but wanted to leave the final decision to the commanders on the ground. The President is Command-in-Chief, not the generals on the ground, that's what you call leadership. If generals ran our foreign policy there would always be a war to fight, and deferring to them on matters of war, is clearly leading from behind. A term they like to pin on the President, but have no facts to back it up.

As for the media, they kill me. First President Obama was to calm, to disconnected, to disengaged, and now when Biden stands up and calls the Republicans out on all their crap, he was to aggressive, to emotional and dismissive. You're God damn right! These people are running to control the free world, not city council. Somebody needed to stand up and say enough already with the double speak, and smoke and mirrors. Now if Obama can repeat what Biden did, it's game over. The American electorate isn't as informed on these things as I'd like, but people can generally recognize a pair of bullshit artists when they see them. They're going to cut taxes (mainly for the rich) 8 Trillion dollars, and have the nerve to say to American people, but we can't tell you how until AFTER the election. They are going to create 12 million jobs, and don't give us any idea how that's going to happen. They are going to make us energy independent by 2020? Are you kidding me? I can hear the roar of laughter at Exxon-Mobil as we speak! Stop for a minute and just listen to what these clowns are saying? It's sunshine and happy days, if we just go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place, it's INSANE!

It really is pretty simple, it you want more tax breaks for the wealthy, and an 8 Trillion dollar bill added to the debt that gets paid for with pixy dust?
If you want another war in the middle east in Syria, or Iran, or both?
If you want to overturn Roe v. Wade  and let states decide abortion policy?
If you want women to pay more for insurance just because they're women, abolish Planned Parenthood, and impose invasive medically unnecessary procedures to get a abortion?
If you DON'T agree in equal pay for equal work for women?
If you want to throw 40 Million Americans back into the ranks of the uninsured?
If you think the auto industry should have gone bankrupt?
If after the biggest financial meltdown since the great depression, you want less regulation on Wall street so they can go back to business as usual?
If after over a decade of war, you still want an open ended commitment in Afghanistan?
If you think Mitt Romney just made a mistake when he called 47% of Americans victims and deadbeats, who won't take responsibility for their own lives?
If you want a lier for President and Vice President?
If you want all these things, then your choice is clear. However if you want the opposite of all these things, your choice is equally clear. Your choice could never be more important. Get fired up, get to the polls, and vote, vote, VOTE!

How Do You Fight A Lie?

Some would call it a stroke of political genius. Others underhanded and patently unethical, but no matter how you score Mitt Romney's debate performance this week, the facts had nothing to do with it. The man has long had a reputation as a political shape shifter, but the size and scope of what he did this week goes beyond words. Oh some may say I may have a case of sour grapes, the fact is I thought Romney won the debate hands down and have said so. The issue I raise is that the man took command of the debate stage last Wednesday by introducing 80 million Americans to a man that doesn't exist. He took advantage of the millions of Americans known as "low information voters", and fed them exactly what he thought they wanted to hear. Then when the debate ended and everybody had changed the channel, his advisers came out to "clarify" what Governor Romney meant about this, and what Governor Romney meant about that.

A good example of what I mean,  Romney said his health plan covers pre-existing conditions. However, unlike the Presidents plan that covers them in all cases, he conveniently left out the part where his plan only covers pre-existing conditions if you already have insurance, and have had it since birth, oh details, details, details. That is not just misleading, IT'S A LIE! It's not a gaff, not a misstatement, not a poor choice of words, it was a political calculation to lie to an audience of 80 million people, and worry about the fact checkers later, which in this case were his own people just minutes after the debate ended.

After his win Wednesday, his 47% comment went from being "inelegantly stated" to a complete retraction of the comments. Once again changing his tune to shield himself from any criticism he no doubt knows will be tossed his way in the next debate. He can say he is for 100% of Americans until he's blue, the fact is he got caught behind closed doors with a room full of rich like minded conservatives, and told us what he really thinks. We are a nation of makers and takers. A full 47% of this country are deadbeats, victims, and dependents hooked on the government dole, and don't pay federal income tax. Strong words from a man who keeps most of his money in offshore accounts around the world so he doesn't have to pay federal income tax. In fact, he wants to abolish the estate tax so the haves and have mores like him, can pass their money to their kids without having to pay taxes on that!

So the question remains, how do you fight a lie? Well, a good place to start is to call him out on the alternate universe he wants the American people to hear, and the reality of what he really stands for. I'm not going to re litigate the first debate, but Obama better damn well start countering some of Romney's nonsense if wants to regain some credibility for his "Forward" campaign. Look up, not down, look at Romney and say "who the hell are you?" How can you stand here and bold face lie to the American people? Are you so ethically bankrupt that you feel this is the only way you can win? The man is a politically expedient chameleon, and for the legions of "low information voters" out there, that's a dangerous thing.

Obama Let Romney Off The Ropes

In light of my earlier blog, Mitt Romney just might want the Presidency after all. In what was probably the worst debate performance I have ever seen from the President, it is clear he vastly underestimated Romney's ability to deliver a knock out blow. From the very beginning Romney was aggressive, assertive, and drove the debate from start to finish. The President seemed disengaged, kept his head down, and tried a "do no harm" approach that did exactly that. While most people thought a win would look like Mitt Romney just holding his own against the President, turned into a complete route in Romney's favor. There is no question the first debate is always the most important one, the President could have put this contest away last night, but he failed miserably.

So how does this translate? Well for one thing the massive wave of momentum the Obama campaign was riding into this debate simply evaporated in 90 short minutes. It will be a few days until we can access the damage, but rest assured damage was done. It is clear the President was not as prepared as he should have been for this debate. As far as I could see, Obama was too busy trying to be cool, calm, and Presidential, while Romney was taking him to the wood shed. It is clear the President thought he could coast through this debate while watching Mitt Romney self destruct, well that was an epic miscalculation. In politics, no matter how diminished your may think your opponent is, you never ever give him a chance to recover, and last night Romney did just that.

While both candidates played fast and loose with the truth last night, Romney's demeanor dominated the discussion, and in some ways blunted the Presidents attempts to respond. While it is clear both of these candidates don't like each other, President Obama showed it. The forced smiles, the constant looking down, the almost dismissive manner he used to counter Romney's arguments, all made him look like he had somewhere else he'd rather be, and I'm sure by the end of the debate that was completely true.

The big problem I have with all of this, is that the President had an arsenal of weapons he could have used on Romney last night, and didn't use one! His 47% remark, women's rights, voter suppression, his division of Americans as makers and takers. Why didn't he call Romney out on any of these issues? Instead he chose to sit back and play it cool, while Romney eviscerated him. Now while I am deeply disappointed in the Presidents performance, I think this debate is to little to late. It may swing a few people off the fence to Romney's side, but not in the kind of numbers he needs to capture the White House. Just because he had a good debate doesn't change 18 months of describing his vision for America, and while he fed us that vision with a big spoonful of sugar last night, the choice remains clear, and direction each of these men represent remains unchanged. When the dust settles Romney will still be a plutocratic gas bag, who favors the rich and big business at the expense of the middle class, and that is why he is still going to lose in November.

News Flash: Romney Doesn't Want The Job

As dawn breaks this morning, yet another State has gone solid blue for President Obama. New polling has the President up 7 points now in New Hampshire, another state that has remained tight until recently. You know, in seeing the nightmare of campaign scenarios, and skeletons fall from Romney's closet of late, it has become abundantly clear Governor Romney's heart just isn't in this anymore. Whether consciously or unconsciously, somewhere along the line Romney has made the decision he no longer wants the White House. How else do you explain the comedy of errors that have plagued the Republican nominee since their convention? I'll be the first to tell you, I totally disagree with Romney's public policy approach, but the man can't be this stupid? Granted, he was born sliding into home, with his prep school and ivy league educations, a man of privilege with a net worth of one quarter of a billion dollars. However, you can't perpetuate the kind of wealth this man has, and be a complete moron. Yet as the saying goes, it takes money to make money, and Romney was never short in that department.

Romney plays at wanting the Presidency like its something to check off his bucket list. Recent events have shown his true colors, and he has doubled down on them in turn alienating half the electorate, and as a result watched his competitiveness nationwide collapse. If he really wants to win the Presidency, a good start would be to win a 24 hour news cycle, something he hasn't done since the Republican convention. He continues to flip flop on every issue for the political expediency of the moment, and has become a walking contradiction with a garbled message that changes day to day.

In another example of his wavering grab for the Presidency, in a memo sent to surrogates today, Romney senior adviser Beth Myers sets the expectations for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney low - very low - compared to the "ample rhetorical gifts" of his opponent. The memo says President Obama has a "significant advantage" heading into the first debate. "President Obama is a uniquely gifted speaker, and is widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history," Myers writes, calling Obama a "universally acclaimed public speaker." The debates are considered Romney's last chance to turn around voters, and nothing exudes confidence in your vision for America by lowering expectations on your last chance to deliver that message to the nation.

As for the conservative establishment, tea party types, evangelicals, and most of the Republican base, even they are throwing up their hands with Romney. As a candidate they never liked to begin with, he sure hasn't done anything to increase the love. A sense of panic is setting in on the right with each passing day, that not only will they lose the White House, but any chance at the Senate, and possibly even lose the House. A good sense that the rats are jumping ship, is the notable increase in donations to the Obama campaign. Nobody wants to vote for a loser, and a lot of people who have been sitting on the sidelines are getting in the game, and NOT for Romney. If Romney no longer wants the job as I suspect, his debates will be dismal, and the election will go to Obama. The first showdown is October 3rd, so tune in and see for yourself if Romney crashes and burns, if he does the rest will be history and Obama will be re-elected. The question is if Romney has thrown in the towel, how much will that will effect Obama's coat tails? We shall see.

September Electoral Update

Oh what a difference an imploding Romney-Ryan campaign can bring. The electoral map has several changes, still with no toss-ups. Dark Red Romney has a lead above 5%, Pink Romney has a lead below 5%, Dark Blue Obama has a lead over 5%, Light Blue Obama has a lead below 5%. The changes this post are as follows:

Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida are now solid Blue. Nevada, New Hampshire, and North Carolina (formerly pink) are light blue.

As always 270 is the magic number. The current map shows the election rapidly fading from Mitt Romney's grasp. As many pivotal battleground states turn dark blue Romney-Ryan have a big problem on their hands. If the current map holds it will be a big win for the President.

Obama-Biden                          Romney-Ryan

347                                            191

 

I think it's fair to say when you dismiss 47% of the American electorate as "victims" not willing to take "personal responsibility" from their chronic culture of entitlement, you might offend a few people. Of course most of this 47% of deadbeats Romney refers to are the working poor, elderly retirees on Social Security, and veterans. Yes he let his true colors fly to a room full of super rich donors cut from the same cloth he was, and for $50,000 a plate you got to hear the REAL Mitt Romney.

 

The kicker? He's pretends like it didn't happen? Like some 2 year old sitting in a corner with his fingers in his ears going la la la la la, no problem with our campaign, no reboot needed, its smooth sailing, sometimes we're up, sometimes down, but we're going to win. The day after his 47% comments he says he want to work for 100% of Americans? REALLY? How can anyone in their right mind take him seriously about anything. The man has broken the world record for talking out of both sides of his mouth. I have never seen a political campaign consistently, and without careful thought or consideration, double down on stupid so much?

 

There are 4 debates coming up 3 Presidential, 1 Vice Presidential. After week after week of putting his foot in his mouth, and his head up his ass, who can believe a single word this man says? ...and that goes double for his partner Lyin Ryan. Let me tell you something people, this contest is over, period, end of story. Romney-Ryan have hit the iceberg, and on November 6th the last of this ship-wreck will slip beneath the waves. Romney and Ryan have no credibility on anything, they have gone from a campaign of the mundane to the insane. The entire conservative establishment doesn't know what to say about this man anymore? Oh of course those people who were going to vote for him no matter what persist, but moderates and independents are sprinting for the exits. So sit back enjoy the debates, and watch Romney and Ryan prove time and again how out of touch they are with the American people. It's must see TV, so get some popcorn and settle in, because it's going to be a laugh a minute.

 

The Real Mitt Romney Just Stood Up

After weeks of turmoil within the Romney campaign since the failed Republican National Convention, a secret video captured without Romney's knowledge has given us a window of what he really thinks.  He said,  "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing." He went on to explain almost half of U.S. voters - as people who live off government handouts and do not "care for their lives". He continued, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives what I have to do is convince the 5 percent to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful."

Here's the whole statement: http://youtu.be/XnB0NZzl5HA

Well there you have it. His real thoughts about the American electorate in a few very concise statements. He thinks half of the United States population are victims ingrained with the notion of entitlement. They don't care about their lives, and will not take personal responsibility for their situation. We are a nation of handouts and freeloaders. How's that for a message from the man who would be President? He offered no distinctions between the elderly on medicaid, the disabled, veterans, the long term unemployed, his statement cast a wide net and did not discriminate about anyone who currently get government assistance of one form or the other.

Mr middle class just through 95% of them under the bus. I guess when you think the middle class lies between $200 thousand and $250 thousand a year, this might make sense to him. Unfortunately it only serves as one more massive example of how out of touch this silver spoon fed moron really is. To think those in need of any form of government assistance are irresponsible about taking control of their own lives, shows just how removed this man is from the reality of life in America in 2012. It's quite easy to dismiss 50% of the electorate who try to work and struggle to make ends meet, if you've never known what that's like. Its quite easy to tell the elderly and disabled to take responsibility for themselves when you have $250 Million dollars in the bank. It's completely rational to call people victims, when you have never known the real struggle behind making it in America.

So what does Romney do next? Captain No Apology, once again doubles down on the indefensible. He called his remarks not “elegantly stated” and spoken "off the cuff", Romney said the video didn’t fully capture his views or his entire comments about personal responsibility and the role of government in society. “I am talking about a political process of drawing people in my campaign. … My campaign is about helping people take more responsibility,” Romney said. His inelegant off the cuff remark declared openly and without reservation, his concern is for the 1%, and the 49% percent of ignorant lemmings that constantly vote against their own interests by buying into this non-sense.They can spin this any way they want, but this is the real Mitt Romney. It always has been, it always will be, and anyone who tries to tell you different is lying, deluded, or both.

Mitt Romney International Man Of Mystery

I'm not even sure where to begin here, but lets just say Mitt Romney has just introduced us to one more reason NOT to vote for him. In the past two days several of our embassies in the middle east have come under attack. The most notable in Cairo Egypt, and Benghazi Libya where our embassy was burned, and we lost four foreign service workers, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Today our embassy in Yemen came under attack, and protests continued in Egypt. In all, eleven middle eastern countries held protests of some kind. All sparked by an Internet video that was intensely offensive to Islam, and the Muslim world in general.

Now before all the facts were in, the brilliant team of neo-con political guru's in the Romney campaign saw an opportunity for some cheap political points, and attacked the President for sympathizing with the attackers, and apologizing for America. Neither of which is true, but what can we expect from a campaign that won't be "hindered by fact checkers"? So Romney makes the attack BEFORE the assault on the Libyan embassy, that killed our ambassador. Most rational people would say step back, cool your jets, but not Mitt Romney, there's not an apologetic bone in his pathetic body. So what does he do? While the nation morns the loss of our ambassador and his comrades who gave their lives in service to the country, he doubles down on his non-sense about apologizing for America. Even conservatives were wringing their hands at Romney's comments, with the exception of RNC chair Reince Priebus (who is a collosal ass hat anyway).

This is a man who thinks our most dangerous geo-political enemy is Russia? This summer he took a three nation tour of Great Britain, Israel, and Poland. He insulted the Brits two days before the London Olymipics were about to start, saying he didn't think they looked ready, insulted the Palestinians while trying to kiss Israel's ass, and stumbled through Poland, which by the end had him begging for terra firma in the good ole' US of A. The man is war monger, happy to start dropping bombs on anybody who doesn't like our values. Let me tell you something, we don't have that many bombs! He's quick to shove our armed services into another war, while having no concept of what that might entail? The man is a complete novice in foreign affairs, and his buddy Ryan is about as well schooled as he is on the subject. He even admits that in matters regarding the military, he would defer to the experts and the generals. He may think corporations are people, but America is no corporation. You can't outsource American foriegn policy, or delegate our military to some focus group? Do you really want Romney as our Commander-in Chief? Granted Obama didn't have any foreign policy experience, but Joe Biden brought twenty eight years of foreign policy experience with him. Its like a bad Dr. Seuss book, Thing 1 and Thing 2 trash the world in 80 days.

For a man whose strategy is to blame Obama, avoid specifics, and outright lie to the American people, it proves one thing, American isn't a one trick pony. He wants to concentrate on jobs and the economy because that's all he's got in his bag, as was so painfully demostrated this week. There are many facets to running the worlds only superpower, and when you have to constantly lie, and double down on absurd statements like the one he made this week, you start to reek of desperation; and that my friends is a smell that doesn't come out.

The Republican Right Is Just Wrong

It is no big surprise that I thought the Democratic National Convention was much better than their Republican counterparts, but then again most pundits seem to agree. It doesn't appear that the Romney-Ryan ticket got any bump from their convention, and it is unclear as yet if the Democrats have made any gains. So with the respective delegates back home, the final stretch has begun. The last real fights will come at the three Presidential, and one Vice Presidential debates all slated to begin in October.

So what kind of impressions were made by the two parties? The Republicans seemed stiff, not cohesive, and fell short on explaining a road map for the future. While Democrats also fell short on a vision of what comes next, they were better prepared, and the atmosphere in Charlotte was much lighter than the stoic pronouncements from Tampa.

Republicans tried real hard to paint a reactionary vision of America that really only exists in their own alternate universe. They clamor to project our military might in yet two more countries in the middle east, (Syria and Iran), while not acknowledging the sacrifices of the soldiers who have ended the war in Iraq, and are ending the war in Afghanistan. For a group who loves to wrap themselves in the flag as much as they do, I thought that was a disgrace. The nation is war weary, but they still want to pick a fight with every perceived threat on the block. Neither Romney or Ryan have served in the military, while Ryan touts he "voted to send people to war..." its a little different being one of the brave men and women who defend our country at the whim of his vote. American foreign policy isn't akin to a game of RISK where you push pieces of plastic around a map, Mr. Ryan votes and people die, and the same goes for Romney. Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with a group of hard core neo-cons that love to saber rattle, and beat their chests at every country in the world that looks at us crooked. I hardly think Romney's business experience, and Ryans war votes qualify them to tackle our foreign policy, especially when Mitt Romney thinks our biggest geo-political enemy is Russia? News Flash: The Cold War ended twenty years ago, maybe he's spent to much time looking at Russia from Sarah Palin's house?

Republicans talk about community, but its a gated community. They say if you just work hard enough you can be a member of the club, but they aren't taking any new members. Corporations are people, take responsibility for yourself, no matter what hand life has dealt you, show us your papers, there is a boogie man behind every tree who wants to kill babies, destroy the sanctity of your "real" marriage, take your home, your money, and your house. They want to take your gun, crush your religion, and steal your"Freedom". At the same time they want to take control of a woman's right to choose, while in the same breath warn us about death panels? They talk about legitimate rape, while giving Fourteenth Amendment rights to an embryo? Everything is something to be afraid of, and government tops the list. Why is government good when it lets you bring a gun into a bar? Why is government good when it forces women to undergo invasive and unnecessary procedures in order to get a legal abortion? Why is it good government to call America a christian nation, and force prayer in public schools, when the Constitution says otherwise? The Republican Party is a walking contradiction, filled with coded language they think only they can understand. It's like saying they are invisable, but everyone can see what they're doing. I will close para-phrasing from a book consevatives just love. Observe all the Republicans and be careful to do everything they tell you, but do not use their example as your guide, for they do not practice what they preach.

The Republican National Convention

Well they are finally striking the circus tents in Tampa, as the Republican Convention comes to a close. I would like to thank Hurricane Issac for making it one day shorter, (who says God doesn't like Democrats). I must admit it was painful to watch the three day Land of the Lost marathon, but let me take a stab at what I took away from this conservative meeting of the minds.

First, all their speakers were scheduled by a schizophrenic. If they wanted to muddle their messages they couldn't have done a better job. Tuesday Anne Romney wanted to tell us about love, followed by Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) who said screw love, it's about respect. Wednesday V.P. pick Paul Ryan (R-WI) took to the stage and bold faced lied to the country for 30 minutes, quite the auspicious start for his first big prime time speech. Then Mitt Romney tried to give us the warm fuzzes by trying to tell us he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but not before a bizarre attempt at improv by Clint Eastwood.

Generally a national party convention is used to prop up their choice for president in this case Mitt Romney, instead we got a long line of auditions for 2016. From Christie to Rubio and everyone in between, speaker after speaker told their own political stories, ending and by the way, vote for Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan. There was the usual pining about God, guns, and government, and a fairly noble attempt to humanize Romney for the electorate, but there is only so much lipstick you can put on a pig. A noticeable increase in the invocation of God, which made some speeches sound like they were at a revival, as opposed to a convention.

In a nutshell, they tried very hard to soften the sharp edges of what they really believe, but as far as independents are concerned, I honestly don't know if they swayed anyone from the middle. Of course when you have Lyin Ryan telling you what you want to hear, minus a little thing called FACTS, you never know. I have never heard a more blatant distortion of the truth in my life than what I listened to from Paul Ryan Wednesday night. Republicans always play fast and loose with the facts, but this was absolutely ridiculous, not to mention criminal in its execution.

The ongoing overriding theme of the convention "We Did Build That" was based on a quote from President Obama they took out of context. I suppose desperate times, need desperate measures. They beat our poor founding fathers to death. They were great men, but they've been dead for over 200 years, and when they formed our perfect union, slavery was legal, women's suffrage was a pipe dream, and only rich, white, land owners got to vote, can't you see the appeal? They want to strip women's rights, hamper voting with laws in search of a problem, and take us back to when wifey was chained to the stove, and minorities knew their place. Their slogan is "We Believe In America", but just what kind of America do they believe in? No place I want to live I can tell you.

Representative Todd Akin Is Symptomatic Of The New GOP

Well by now I'm sure many of you have heard about the incendiary comments made by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO). Mr. Akin is the Republican running to take the seat currently held by Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in the United States Senate. Akin, who on Sunday suggested that women who are "legitimately raped" cannot get pregnant, has battled off calls from within his own party to drop his bid for the Senate.

Vice Presidential pick Paul Ryan (R-WI) co-sponsored bills with Akin that would restrict federally-funded abortions, even for victims of rape and incest. Ryan stood by his vote in a T.V.interview, but declined to elaborate, saying simply "rape is rape". However, he himself made a distinction in the legislation he co-sponsored with Akin to categorize "forcible rape"? When pressed Ryan dodged the issue by again repeating "rape is rape." While Mitt Romney excludes abortion restrictions on cases of rape, incest, or when the health of other is at stake, Ryan does not. In fact, the Republican National Convention platform has a plank that embraces the Ryan view, and excludes rape and incest as legitimate reasons for an abortion. This plank persists despite the last three Republican Nominee's, George W. Bush, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney who have openly opposed it.

Some conservatives rallied around Akin. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins faulted GOP leaders for trying to quickly shove Akin aside. He called Akin’s comments “indefensible,” but noted that “when others have made mistakes, you haven’t seen the entire Republican establishment abandon him. I think it’s somewhat suspect.” Perkins compared Akin’s situation to that of former senator George Allen (R-Va.), who came under fire during his 2006 reelection campaign for calling an aide to his opponent “macaca,” but didn’t face immediate calls to drop out.

How do you justify one highly offensive remark, with another highly offensive remark? Well let me tell you, despite all the (in my humble opinion), false outrage by the Right against Rep. Akin lies a Republican base that sees absolutely nothing wrong with what Akin said. Oh it was mistake BUT, the comment was ugly BUT, It was regrettable BUT... But What? The man said some rape was legitimate! He apologised, it was a poor choice of words, and then goes on to tell people some women "use rape" as an "excuse" to get abortions. Really?

Stop for a minute. Should we be outraged because of what he said, continues to say, or his refusal to amend his radical Pro-Choice values? Or, should we accept the fact that this man simply said what he thinks, and believes in his heart to be true, despite its poisonous political overtones? For all their hard core indignation, the Republican party is now stuck with a man whose Pro-Choice religious convictions should portend his downfall, but will it? This kind of scurrilous statement should be drawing all the fire it has gotten, but for hard core Republicans this was just a slip of the tongue. It is certainly not worthy of the man leaving his Senate race. Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate to appeal to these people, the legislative association between Ryan and Akin is simply icing on the cake. I spoke of Paul Ryan's poor record on womens rights a few days ago, if you have any doubt at all, you should see how much this emphasizes it.

This is the new face of the Republican Party. They boo uninsured people for not taking personal responsability for their health care, when they can barely make ends meet. They boo a gay soldier serving in Afghanistan who was putting his life on the line every day so they could voice their hate. They want to destroy the social safety net in this country, by telling lies and misrepresentations. They now want to give rape legitamacy in order to promote their radical views against abortion.They do all these things, AND THEY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT. Well if you subcribe to their view of the world, you know who to vote for. However, if you don't, you need to stand up on November 6th and let these small minded fear mongers know that this is not the kind of America you want to live in.

Women's Rights, Another Negative For Ryan

It goes without saying that in the one short week Paul Ryan has become Romney's V.P. pick, he has become a lightning rod for all the radical views he brings to Romney's table. Turning Medicare into a voucher program, and pushing the privatization of Social Security, are just the tip of the Ryan iceberg. I thought it was particularly cowardly of Mr. Ryan, on his first trip to Florida, to take the stage while hiding behind his 78 year old mothers skirt. To add insult to injury, he did it while standing in front of a sign declaring "Protect and Strengthen Medicare". He stared straight faced at the large audience of seniors and proclaimed, “like a lot of Americans, when I think about Medicare, it’s not just a program. It’s not just a bunch of numbers. It’s what my mom relies on. It’s what my grandma had.” All the while promoting a budget proposal that would eviscerate the very program mom and grandma currently have, it really was something to see.

Medicare aside, Ryan is also no friend of women's rights. He has consistently called for ending federal funding to Planned Parenthood, and voted against a measure to allow women in the military to receive abortions in military hospitals. Ryan has earned a perfect rating from the National Right to Life Committee for his votes during his 14 years in Congress. The National Abortion Rights Action League tallied 59 votes that Ryan took on abortion-related bills. On each measure, he voted against abortion rights. "I'm as pro-life as a person gets," Ryan told The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, in 2010. Shortly after the formal announcement of Ryan's selection on Aug. 11, Obama's team tweeted that Ryan would ban abortions even in cases of rape and incest and had sponsored a bill that would outlaw some forms of birth control. The Democratic campaign emailed female supporters to stress Ryan's record on women's issues, including his vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill Obama signed when he took office.

So I guess if you are Missouri Republican Senate Candidate Representative Paul Akin, who claimed this weekend that "legitimate rape" victims seldom get pregnant. First I would ask for a definition of "legitimate rape"? but then I would be rest assured no matter what "kind" of rape it was, Romney's V.P. pick would be against an abortion in that case, and that of incest, or regardless of risks to the health of mother.  As the V.P. pick he has backtracked to Romney's view to outlaw all abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother the "official" stance of the Romney-Ryan campaign.

Ryan was also one of several dozen Republican co-sponsors last year of a bill called the Sanctity of Human Life Act. The measure, which never made it to the House floor, would give a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a person. Abortion rights groups say that would effectively outlaw all abortions, as well as some types of contraception and in-vitro fertilization. Efforts to implement such "personhood" laws at state levels have been rejected even in the most conservative settings. Plain and simple, women have no friend in the Romney-Ryan campaign. The sign below says it all.

Ryan Can't Dodge Medicare Stand

Well it's only 5 days later, and the Ryan Medicare Plan has come front and center. Trying to make a distinction from the Congressman's highly volatile proposals on the the entitlement, Romney is already attempting to put some distance between his "bold" choice for V.P. and his plans for America. One of the subtle things I noticed the day after the Ryan's pick, was on the podium where Romney was to give his speech was a sign proclaiming "The Romney Plan". Nobody knows what the hell that is, but we sure as shit know what Ryan stands for.

Republican political analysts are applauding Romney's "bold" choice while at the same time are proclaiming he just lost the White House. The Ryan pick has also put some fire back in the Congressional elections as well. In what was expected to be a hold on the House for Republicans, has now turned into a wide open nationwide contest. Democrats only need 25 seats to retake the House, and Ryan's political record already has some Republicans running for cover. Ads are already out from some Republicans distancing them from Ryan's attack on Medicare.

In a poor attempt at something akin to a preemptive strike, Both Romney and Ryan are screaming President Obama took $716 Billion dollars from Medicare to pay for Obama Care. What they don't tell you is Romney and Ryan keep that cut in their own budget. So they take that $716 Billion dollars as well. The difference is, Romney/Ryan take that money to create a voucher program that passes costs off onto individuals, while subsidising tax cuts for the rich. The Presidents plan takes that money out of Medicare Advantage programs that were costly and inefficient, and makes pharmacy and insurance companies pick up the slack by putting a ceiling on profits. So next time you hear Romney or Ryan talk about how Obama gutted Medicare with this $716 Billion dollar cut, know they are doing the same thing, only they once again protect the rich, while giving the shaft to the middle class.

As for Ryan's reputation as a fiscal hawk, his record proves otherwise. After 14 years in the House and over 9500 votes. Ryan toes the Republican line just like the rest of the party of "NO". Here are some examples:

1. He voted for the $700 Billion dollar bank bailout (TARP)
2. The Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
3. The Bush Tax Cuts
4. The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
5. No Child Left Behind
6. The Transportation Bill that included the Bridge to Nowhere

What do all these proposals that passed have in common? THEY WERE ALL NOT PAID FOR! Over $5 Trillion dollars straight to the countries credit card. For those of you who listen to Romney and Ryan say how they are going to balance the budget? Guess what? It doesn't happen until 2040!

Oh, and just to clarify, yesterday Ryan admitted the tax loopholes so pivotal to creating revenue for their warped vision for the future will wait until AFTER the election. (Is it me or did I just say this in my last blog?) Brit Hume of Fox News asked Ryan to counter that charge. "What we're saying is get rid of special interest loopholes and deductions that are uniquely enjoyed by the wealthy to lower the tax rates for everybody," Ryan said. But lowering middle-class tax rates, if coupled with eliminating key deductions, could lead to an effective tax increase, the cornerstone of the analyses of Romney's tax plan. Hume pressed for specifics. "That is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress," Ryan told Hume, promising to "have a process for tax reform so that we do this in the front of the public. So no, the point I'm trying to say is, we want feedback from Americans about what priorities in the tax code should be kept, and what special interest loopholes we want to get rid of.  "One of the "loopholes" that costs the IRS the most money is the mortgage interest deduction. Another relates to municipal bonds. Hume asked Ryan if either would be on the chopping block. Ryan refused to say.

Ryan has certainly been a "bold" choice. So bold his Medicare plan has now possibly put Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, and New Hampshire a bit closer to Obama's column. They have the most elderly voters in their states, and if history is any guide they don't like Ryan's Medicare plan. So three cheers for Romney's "bold" choice, here's to ten more just like it.

Yes Virginia There Is A Santa Clause, And His Name Is Paul Ryan

Well despite speculation that Mitt Romney was going to go dull white bread for his V.P. pick, enter Wisconsin's Representative from the states 1st Congressional District Paul Ryan. Ryan who is anything but, the safe, bland, choice many were waiting for, certainly qualifies as a bold move on Romney's part. However, when the dust settles from his initial roll-out, Paul Ryan is probably the most polarizing figure Mitt Romney could have chosen. As for me, I couldn't be happier with the pick, and I'm sure just as much champagne was flowing at the DNC, as was at the RNC yesterday. Romney's choice in Ryan draws a big fat red line in the sand for people to decide which way this country should to go. There is no gray area anymore, Romney's campaign wanted definition, well they just got it in spades!

So lets look at what Mitt Romney has just signed up for? Paul Ryan known for the "Ryan Budget", or what he affectionately calls the "Path to Prosperity" would promote the following:

1. Ryan's budget plan cuts $5.8 trillion over 10 years from projected federal spending and reduces the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the same period. Discretionary spending, which includes programs like food stamps, would see more than $900 trillion in reductions. The budget also calls for the repeal of President Obama's health care reform law, which the plan says would save billions in federal subsidies that will be given to lower-income people to buy insurance.
Translation: Coupled with Romney's call for more tax breaks for the rich, Romney/Ryan would balance the budget on the back of the middle class and working poor. Give health care back to the insurance companies, continue cuts in education, public employees, scientific research.

2. The most contentious part of Ryan's proposed budget is what he would do to change Medicare. Ryan's plan would eventually transform Medicare into defined payments that seniors can use to buy private insurance or a government plan on an insurance exchange. There would be no limits to the out-of-pocket costs seniors could have to pay in this program, but Ryan assumes that the increased competition between Medicare and private plans would bring down overall costs. The amount of money seniors get to buy their insurance can only grow at a slightly higher rate than GDP each year. (The Congressional Budget Office says this would save the government money, but also significantly increase the amount seniors will eventually have to pay for their own insurance.) The eligibility age would gradually rise to 67, from 65. Democrats say this transforms Medicare into a "voucher program" that may leave seniors with big prescription bills and other medical costs, and the Obama campaign is already using this proposal against Romney and Ryan. If Obama can convince seniors--a powerful voting bloc that turns out at the polls--that Ryan would worsen or weaken Medicare, it could mean bad news for their campaign.
Translation: Destroy Medicare as we know it, to finance more breaks for the rich.

3. Ryan would cut the top federal income tax rate for individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent. The budget says some tax breaks and loopholes would be eliminated to help offset the revenue loss from that move.
Translation: Cut government to a level that is unsustainable. At the current 35% rate we can't balance the budget? How do you cut more taxes on the rich, increase the military budget, and slash revenues another 10%? It is simply not possible. Plus Romney will not tell us what tax breaks and what loopholes will be eliminated? I guess it's a secret until AFTER the election.

4. Ryan would slash Medicaid, the insurance program for some low-income people, by $735 billion over ten years, and hand the program back to the states to administer with more freedom. The CBO writes that states would most likely have to "reduce payments to providers, curtail eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law."
Translation: Make the poor, poorer. Give an entitlement like Medicaid back to the states? They can't pay for the programs they administer now? Where is all this money going to come from? you can't keep cutting taxes, and decrease revenue, and think it will all balance out with discretionary spending cuts, its IMPOSSIBLE! How much more discretionary spending can be cut? Look at the problems states are having now? Look at all the municipalities that are going bankrupt because federal and state governments have been slashed to the bone. If they get their way, everyone will pay more, and everyone will get less. More for insurance and less coverage, more in local taxes, less for schools, and fire, and police, and teachers.

5. The budget spares Social Security and defense spending, which are left at current levels. Ryan's decision to back off Social Security is interesting, since he put forward proposals to privatize the program around the same time that President George W. Bush tried to sell the nation on a similar proposal.
Translation: The fact that Ryan even attempted to go here is a bad omen. There is no government entitlement he won't gut, to put your health, education, safety, environment, and public welfare in general, back in the hands of greedy corporations that put profit before people. The free market is mans best friend. Remember corporations are people!

The bottom line is this. You want more breaks for the rich? You want the banks to go back to business as usual? You want insurance companies running your health care? You want oil companies to rake in record profits, and still get government subsides? You want energy companies to administer our environmental policy? You want state and local governments to continue to struggle so we can subsidise the wealthy? If you answered yes to these questions, Romney and Ryan are for you. But know this, Paul Ryan isn't going to bring one single Independent to the Republican ticket. Ryan hasn't added one single person to the Republican rolls, who wasn't going to vote for Romney in the first place. So let them cheer Romney for his bold choice now, come November they can ask Ryan for a tissue to dry their eyes, when they get their asses handed to them.

Contrary To Popular Belief, God Is Not Republican

It never ceases to amaze me how the "Religious Right" in this country think they have God, or better yet, Jesus Christ on their side? If you fit "their" definition of a christian, the Lord is on your side. These same people believe the United States of America "is" a christian nation. They will quote history, and the Constitution to make you somehow believe we as Americans have lost our way? They go so far as to insist that "their" interpretation of history, demands like minded individuals band together to take back America from the secular powers that are undermining our very way of life.

As I recall, this nation was founded on religious freedom. The Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, etc.... The Declaration of Independence declares the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right of all citizens to enjoy the blessings of freedom, and worship as they wish. As for the Constitution, the First Amendment very clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Seems pretty clear to me. This country was established with the idea that no religion shall be discriminated against, or one treated better than any other, and most importantly no one religion will be the standard religion of the United States.

Roughly five days ago, Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed addressed an enthusiastic crowd of more than 6,000 people packed into Arlington's High Point Church in Texas, as a diverse group of prominent conservative leaders and activists called on Americans to return to God. Many speakers at the "Under God Indivisible" rally, were organized in conjunction with Glenn Beck's three-day "Restoring Love" event. (how's that for an oxymoron?) Reed said, "If we get down on our faces and our knees before Almighty God, and we beg of him, not because we're pointing fingers at anybody else, but because of what we have allowed to happen... then I believe in November God will have mercy on our land and we will have a Renaissance of the values that made this country great." The New York Times reports, he's founded a new group, the Faith & Freedom Coalition, and is finding an enthusiastic audience among Tea Partiers and ultraconservatives. Reed believes Obama is anti-religion, and has pledged the resources of Faith & Freedom in order to ensure the incumbent does not secure a second term.

James Robison, a co-host of the rally, also made it clear that he believes it's time for a change in the White House. Robison, who in the past has blamed Hollywood and the television show "Glee" for a decline in American family values, decried the "socialist redistribution mindset" and pro-gay marriage stance of the administration.  Joining Robison in his anti-gay marriage stand was Pentecostal bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland, who fired up the crowd with calls for a new rainbow coalition. "We need to steal back the rainbow," Jackson said at the event. "We can't let the gays have it. We're the rainbow coalition. We're the army of God... We're are going to take back America in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Reality Check: We are a Democracy, NOT a Theocracy. You know where they have theocracies? The Islamic middle east, to christian conservatives they are the devil incarnate. They simply want to impose "their" religion instead of Islam. Can somebody tell me what's the difference? Neither embrace freedom, particularly of religion, so what are they talking about? These coalitions are nothing of the kind, coalition of hypocrites maybe? Just because you use words like faith, love, and freedom, it only works if you subscribe to "their" interpretation of those words, or "their" TRUTH.

I don't have the temerity to say God is on my side, and judge others accordingly. The teachings of Jesus Christ in fact preach the exact opposite. Love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have then do unto you, God is Love. Some on the Right think love needs to be restored, but that can't be done you don't practice what you preach. I'll say it again God is Love, not a bigot, not a hater, and certainly not a Republican. Judge lest you be judged? This is one of the foundations of faith, not a political tool to work your will on those who dare to think otherwise. Don't quote me, but I don't think God or Jesus were affiliated with any one political party, and I certainly don't remember reading anywhere how they promote Capitalism over Socialism? To denigrate in this way the very message these people of Christ profess to promote, is hypocrisy in its highest form.

Conservative Indignation For A False Truth

You know I see, and occasionally get, e-mails from my friends and family on the Right with one constant overriding theme. It boils down to this, an intense anger that those who work, are subsidising those who don't, won't, or cannot. I also find it amusing that these people scream the loudest when a Democrat occupies the White House, especially a black one. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, and Disabilities are not distinguished. They are for a group of people who play the system, don't want to work, won't work, don't deserve help, or otherwise should be left to their own demise according to the choices they have made in life. They have an "individual responsibility" to take care of themselves, without picking the pocket of people who work hard and pay their taxes.

Are there abuses in this system? yes. Is it as widespread as the Right would have you believe? maybe.  The question I raise is where is this same rabid indignation when the Pentagon pays $300 for a wrench? Or when Big Oil makes 25+ Billion dollars over a 3 month period, and still gets government subsidies? Or billions are wasted on defense contracts for weapons systems that don't work?  Massive tax cuts are sustained for the rich, while the middle class is dying. These abuses are just as wide spread, just as common, and just as substantially wasteful. The money for all these things comes from the same U.S. Treasury. So why are individuals in need singled out for the harshest treatment? and where is all this righteous indignation when a Republican is in the White House? These abuses are long standing, and know no political allegiance. Does that make them right? Of course not, but this is the system our government, both Democrats and Republicans, have created. You can't fight the rich, or the corporations, or the Military Industrial Complex, but the individual is ripe for consternation.

I'll bet you the majority of these screamers on the Right are people who are well off, and have forgotten what it's like to struggle to make ends meet, or never had that problem in their own individual life experience. They worked hard to be where they are, and don't want others threatening their prosperity. How is the waste of billions in defense contracts less offensive than the unemployed, disabled, or elderly that game the system? Surely not all of these people are frauds? At least some of these people are being helped, why is demonizing these people in need, such an attractive target? Think back to your own individual experience? Did someone help you at one point in your life to get you started? A parent, a friend, a relative? Did you come from the middle class, or upper middle class? If so, should those who did not enjoy the same advantages you had suffer because they were born poor, or a minority, or just into a cycle of poverty that they had no control over?

These people who incite such anger, do they fit a specific stereotype? Did you come to these preconceived notions on your own, or were you raised and taught these things? What is so special about your situation that gives you permission to judge these people? Now this really gets conservatives pissed because their opinions have been burned into their heads as facts. I see it every day, just look around for yourself, all driven by individual prejudice, stereotypes, and a notion of do they look or act a certain way? How do I know all this? Because I was raised just like this, with all the stereotypes, prejudice, and preconceived notions the Right cries about everyday. Even today I struggle sometimes with these same prejudices, but at least I recognize it, and am working to overcome it. I don't want praise for that, I want people who were raised like me to understand nobody knows any one persons individual experience, and nobody has the right to judge anybody else unless they have walked a mile in their shoes. Whatever your experience, you can't justify hate and bigotry no matter what you think, what you were taught, or what you believe. There is no passage in the Bible to protect it, no article in the Constitution to legitimize it, no way to make your OPINIONS the TRUTH.

End Of July Electoral Update

As July ends the electoral map has several changes, still with no toss-ups. Dark Red Romney has a lead above 5%, Pink Romney has a lead below 5%, Dark Blue Obama has a lead over 5%, Light Blue Obama has a lead below 5%. The changes this post are as follows:

Wisconsin has moved to +5% for Obama, as has Ohio, which is big! New Hampshire dropped to -5% for Obama. Missouri has moved to +5% for Romney. The leads in North Carolina and Florida are less than 1% respectively.

As always 270 is the magic number. I apologize, while some states solidified and one faded, the map remains unchanged. I had Virginia in Romney's column last time by mistake, corrected Obama's lead has increased as shown. This total is accurate.

Barack Obama                         Mitt Romney

332                                            206

 

Despite the withering barrage of negative ads by both sides, President Obama seems to be doing better than Romney on the ad front. However, Romney's latest tactics have been to cherry pick a certain sentence out of one of the President's speeches, and place it in an ad out of context. Very easy to do, but a lie non-the-less. Check it out below.

 

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#48361131

 

Regardless of what Mitt Romney tries to do, the fact is the electoral map is still strongly in the President's favor in the states that count.

 

Romney's main problem continues to be his lack of character, and the continued appearance he will do or say anything to become President. His trip overseas to bolster his foreign policy "ideals" started with a giant insult to Great Britain just hours before they were to begin hosting the 2012 London Olympic Games. He questioned the ability of London to pull off the games despite serious misgivings about security, and the people of London specifically. Way to begin an overseas trip, with insults and misgivings about your host. What did he think they wouldn't notice? Of course the British media struck back with ferocity, thus overshadowing the rest of his trip to England.

 

Then he was off to Israel to kiss some butt, and weave some homespun neo-conservative saber rattling over Iran, straight from the desk of John Bolton. Currently Romney's chief foreign policy advisor, and former U.N. Ambassador under George W. Bush. You know, if you want somebody who had stellar foreign policy George W. is my first choice. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and especially Bolton, never knew a war they didn't like. As things wind down in Afghanistan, I guess it's time to crank up the fear machine over Iran. God knows America isn't truly defending our freedom unless we're dropping bombs on someone somewhere.

 

In any event, Romney still has a lot of work to do, and just a little over 3 months to do it. His path is difficult, but not out of reach. His V.P. pick is said to be more boring than he is, if that's possible? ROMNEY - PET ROCK 2012.  The Conventions, and the debates, are going to seal this deal. The Republicans are up first in Tampa at the end of August, and they need to pull a rabbit out of the hat; but first they need to find a hat!

 

Stripped Financial Regulation And The Road To Ruin

What is commonly known today as the Glass-Steagall law is actually the Bank Act of 1933, containing the provision that erects a wall between the banking and securities businesses. Congressional hearings conducted in early 1933 seemed to show that the presumed leaders of American enterprise (the bankers and brokers) were guilty of disreputable and seemingly dishonest dealings and gross misuses of the public's trust. The Act established new approaches to financial regulation, particularly the institution of deposit insurance, and the legal separation of most aspects of commercial and investment banking. It was believed that bank involvement with securities was detrimental to the Federal Reserve system, contrary to the rules of good banking, and responsible for stock market speculation, the Crash of 1929, bank failures, and the Great Depression.

Curbing banks' ability to grow too large has been a common theme in legislation through the years. During the 1930s and 1940s, banks stuck to the basics of taking deposits and making loans. Congress didn't intervene again until 1956, when it enacted the Bank Holding Company Act to keep financial-services conglomerates from amassing too much power. That law created a barrier between banking and insurance in response to aggressive acquisitions, Congress thought it improper for banks to risk possible losses from underwriting insurance.

In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that banks were prohibited from offering a product that is similar to mutual funds. In an often quoted decision, the Court found that the Act was intended to prevent banks from endangering themselves, the banking system, and the public from unsafe and unsound practices and conflicts of interest.  Since 1985 the regulators have allowed banks to offer discount brokerage services through subsidiaries, and these more permissive rules have been upheld by the courts. Thus, more recent court decisions and regulatory agency rulings have tended to soften the 1971 Supreme Court's apparently strict interpretation of the Act's prohibitions.

Commercial bank affiliations forbid member banks from affiliating with a company 'engaged principally' in the 'issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution at wholesale or retail or through syndicate participation of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities'. In June 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling accepting the Federal Reserve Board's April 1987 approval for member banks to affiliate with companies underwriting commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and securities backed by mortgages and consumer debts, as long as the affiliate does not principally engage in those activities. 'Principally engaged' was defined by the Federal Reserve as activities contributing more than from 5 to 10 per cent of the affiliate's total revenue. In 1987, the DC Court of Appeals affirmed the Federal Reserve Board's 1985 ruling allowing a bank holding company to acquire a subsidiary that provided both brokerage services and investment advice to institutional customers. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board testified to Congress in December 1987, that the Board supported a Glass-Steagall repeal.

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted to remedy the speculative abuses that infected commercial banking prior to the collapse of the stock market and the financial panic of 1929-1933. Many banks, especially national banks, not only invested heavily in speculative securities but entered the business of investment banking in the traditional sense of the term by buying original issues for public resale. Apart from the special problems confined to affiliation three well-defined evils were found to flow from the combination of investment and commercial banking.

(1) Banks were investing their own assets in securities with consequent risk to commercial and savings deposits. The concern of Congress to block this evil is clearly stated in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on an immediate forerunner of the Glass-Steagall Act.

(2) Unsound loans were made in order to shore up the price of securities or the financial position of companies in which a bank had invested its own assets.

(3) A commercial bank's financial interest in the ownership, price, or distribution of securities inevitably tempted bank officials to press their banking customers into investing in securities which the bank itself was under pressure to sell because of its own pecuniary stake in the transaction.

In 1999 the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Then signed by President Bill Clinton, who publicly declared, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant." The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA), as it came to be known, permitted “super-banks” to “re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s”, which were characterized as “lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way.

After less than 10 years, the American financial system had a massive meltdown in 2008. Highlighted by bank bailouts from the Federal Government, and the collapse of the housing market, perpetuated by the exact practices Glass-Steagall was passed to prevent. While President Clinton, (a Democrat) signed into law the ultimate demise of Glass-Steagall, every effort to weaken it since 1971 was initiated by Republicans. Deregulation began in the 1980's with President Reagan, and ultimately succeeded with (GLBA), in 1999.

After the bottom fell out in 2008, in an effort to stop further abuses by Wall Street, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was enacted. Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, the Act brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. It represents a significant change in the American financial regulatory environment affecting all Federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every aspect of the nation's financial services industry. And who do you think wants to gut this law, and let Wall Street go back to business as usual? Republicans. As long as fat cat investment bankers, and hedge fund managers, can rape and pillage the American people's hard earned savings, life is good. To add insult to injury after we bailed out the big banks they sat on the money, futher stagnating an already weak economy. They're sitting on $2 Trillion dollars, and refuse to lend it out, on the off chance efforts to gut Dodd-Frank prove successful. These modern day Wall Street robber barons ARE Mitt Romney's crowd, and their greed has us locked in a stagnant economy, and weak job creation. Blame Obama if you want, but this nightmare was a decade in the making, maybe more. The road ahead is rough, but letting Wall Street go back to business as usual is absolute madness.