Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Romney Jeep Ad in Ohio a Desperate Lie.

Mitt Romnocchio is back down in the mud lying like a four year-old claiming the auto loans extended by President Obama went to hire workers in China, not the U.S. (link):
We've clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days,” GM spokesman Greg Martin said. “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.
Separately, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne refuted the Romney TV ad that Chrysler may move all Jeep production from the U.S. to China (link):
“Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,” Marchionne stated in the e-mail. “The numbers tell the story,” followed by specific investments Chrysler has made at its plants in Detroit, Toledo and Belvidere, Ill. “Those include more than $1.7 billion to produce the successor of the Jeep Liberty and hire about 1,100 workers on a second shift by 2013.”
These two businessmen, Martin and Marchionne, aren't liberal activists trying to smear Romney. They are titans of industry who are rightfully disgusted by Romney pathetically trying to mislead American workers in Michigan and Ohio.

Romney's lies do even greater harm by smearing the reputation of GM and Chrysler, which has just gotten back on its feet. If Romney would mislead Americans so easily about a vital, American, industry then what else would he lie about? Apparently he cares less about workers and more about winning political points at the cost of American jobs. Lying about jobs and trade practices to hard-working, blue collar, middle class, Americans is pathetic for a man who keeps his money in foreign banks and invests heavily in dubious, Chinese companies.

Those companies include one discovered to have sold pirated movies and t.v. shows, and another one was busted for selling bootleg college exams to American students (link). You have to wonder why Romney invests in China while telling the auto companies to go bankrupt. Standing up for American workers? I think not. That would be President Obama. Besides rescuing the domestic auto industry, President Obama has brought more major trade actions against China than any other president. According to the Center for American Progress. That includes standing up to China to protect American tire manufacturers who rely heavily upon the American auto industry (link). It seems clear that Mitt Romney cares about more about politics than supporting the American worker.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Romney Misleads on Importance of FEMA and Federal Disaster Relief.

After a Republican primary debate this past Spring, Romney told Americans that he'd end federal disaster programs such as FEMA and make states shoulder the burden themselves. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better" (link).

Then Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, and Romney realized that he was once again that he was on the wrong side of yet another issue. So, he's trying to mislead Americans, yet again, by saying he does support FEMA and federal relief funds. As Sabrina Siddiqui reports for "The Huffington Post," the Romney campaign is saying:
Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.
Notice how the position opposing federal help remains except for a sentence hastily added at the end saying "This includes help from the federal government and FEMA." I'm so disgusted with all these "fiscal conservatives" saying government is horrible, incapable and a waste of tax dollars--until they need government help. Then they try to backtrack like Willy Coyote after realizing he ran off the cliff!! Romney must think Americans are all too stupid to notice him changing positions faster than a prostitute in Amsterdam!!

Romney's FEMA failure during Hurricane Sandy gives us a glimpse into how he would handle disasters as President of the United States. It doesn't look good. His short-sighted views on cutting emergency relief programs expose his weaknesses as a politician. He might be able to lead a board-room full of executives but he's clueless as a national leader.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, October 29, 2012

As Hurricane Sandy Pounds East Coast, Romney Plans to Cut Federal Disaster Funds from FEMA. Calls Funding FEMA "Immoral."

During a presidential primary debate earlier this year, Mitt Romney forcefully called for the end of FEMA. That is the national emergency management department of the U.S. government. Romney stated that such activities should be left to the states to manage. He went even further to say the best option would be to privatize disaster relief:
"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?" "Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney."We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all.
It's reckless for Mitt Romney to call for cutting disaster relief funds at the national level. Especially while calling for a reduction in taxes paid by the ultra-rich. His idea is make the rich even richer at the detriment to disaster relief programs. He simply has no idea how massive and expensive these storms can be. No one state alone has enough money to repair a major disaster, such as after Hurricane Katrina. It would bankrupt some states if they were forced to pay for the entire clean-up and rescue efforts. It's disgusting that Romney would rather states go bankrupt and families move than make his rich buddies pay a little extra in taxes to stand with our neighbors to provide disaster assistance. Whatever happened to "United we stand?" Romney would change that phrase to "You're on your own."

Privatizing disaster relief programs is just as dangerous. It makes victims of devastating storms pay higher and higher prices for assistance, especially if they live in a state prone to natural disasters. And what do citizens do who cannot afford to pay for a private company to help them? Are we just going to let them drown or wander around homeless? That is an unfair economic burden to place upon people whose house was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Romney then talks about morality. What would Jesus think? Would he rather we focus on people, or money? Helping our brothers and sisters or ignoring them?

There is a pattern here with Mitt Romney. First we heard him callously telling the auto industry to go bankrupt, which would have made an improving economy in Ohio and Michigan slide back into a recession. Now he's turning his back on millions of voters who live in disaster prone areas of the country: Florida, Virginia, the earthquake zones on the west coast and any state with a high, wildfire risk, (Colorado and other western state). If you believe that we should help our fellow Americans regardless of their state, you need to vote for President Obama. In a Romney world, we're all on our own, which is great for the uber-rich but devastating for the rest of us. Stand with your fellow Americans and vote for President Obama.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, October 26, 2012

U.S. Economy Expanding and Improving at a Quicker Pace.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy expanded at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed by an uptick in consumer spending and a burst of government spending.

It's getting harder for Mitt Romney to claim that the economy is getting worse. It is clearly getting better and better each month. Unemployment is down below the psychologically important level of 8%, the housing market is improving and the DOW is around 13,000 which is more than double the level it was at when Obama took office. Manufacturing is coming back in the Midwest from the auto loans extended by the Obama administration, so it's a lie that Obama has made things worse.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Romney Endorses GOP Candidate Who Said that Pregnancy After Rape is "Something God Intended."

CBS NEWS (link): In a Tuesday night debate with his Democratic rival and a Libertarian candidate for one of Indiana's U.S. Senate seats, Republican candidate Richard Mourdock suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape are "something that God intended to happen," despite the "horrible situation" from which they derived.

Mitt Romney, (who has his own inconsistencies on abortion) has endorsed this radical guy, Mourdock. He made a campaign ad endorsing Richard Mourdock:

Now that Mourdock has insulted women who have survived rape, women in general and their male allies, you'd think Mitt Romney would cut his ties to Mourdock and make clear he doesn't agree. Yet, as is usual with Romney, that's not exactly what happened. "Multiple-Choice" Romney has said he disagrees with the comment but still stands by Richard Mourdock in his bid for the Senate seat from Indiana. That's not a profile in courage, Mitt.

If you disagree with Mourdock's radical statement that pregnancies from rape are what "god intended" then you should no longer continue supporting this man's campaign--period. Actions speak louder than words, especially with you, Mitt, and your track-record of half-truths and slick talk. You can't expect people to believe, or respect you, when you say you disagree with his remarks but stick with supporting his campaign. If you are so against this type of radicalism then why continue having your name, and campaign, connected to this clown?

---End of Transmission--- 

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Romney Endorses President Obama in Foreign Policy Debate.

The presidential debate on foreign policy last night in Florida felt like a Mitt Romney endorsement of President Obama!! Romney is so untested, inconsistent and inexperienced on foreign policy that about all he could do last night was agree with the president's positions on just about everything:

Romney has been touting ridiculous ideas on international policy, such as saying Russia is our number one foe despite the Cold War having been over for 20 years!! As well as saying he wouldn't "move heaven and earth" to get Osama bin Laden. Since he doesn't have any foreign policy experience, he has been trying to mimic George W. Bush. But, seeing that's "Bushism" isn't popular, Romney is now agreeing with Obama, which shows that President Obama is the leader and Romney the follower. That's the kind of inconsistency that we've come to expect from Romney, and it's not presidential. President Obama seized on that weakness, as seen in this clip

Given that Romney is essentially void of good ideas on foreign policy, it's no wonder all he could do was say to President Obama, "Yeah, me too."

---End of Transmission---

Monday, October 22, 2012

Obama Won the National Security Debate.

President Obama has not wavered when it comes to protecting America. He led the fight to al-Qaeda by having Osama bin Laden killed. But he didn't stop there:

Yet many of al Qaeda's leaders have been captured or killed. According to CNN's Peter Bergen, 5 of the most important players in al Qaeda under president Obama.

At the same time, Obama ended the disastrous Iraq War that had foolishly distracted the Republican Party from Osama bin Laden. Yet, the Republicans want us to believe that Obama is the incompetent one on foreign policy?

As for Libya, President Obama helped overthrow a decades long dictator, Gaddafi by providing the Libyan resistance fighters air-support during the revolution. In doing so, the Libyan people cheered for America!! That isn't something you see everyday in the Islamic world. So, how do Republicans react? By crassly using the death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya to attack Obama on foreign policy.
The initial reports out of Libya were confusing because it was a fluid situation and you don't make conclusions before all the evidence had been gathered. However, before the full facts could settle into a report, Mitt Romney was on t.v. trying to blame President Obama for Ambassador Stevens's death!! That's playing cynical politics while our ambassador to Libya's body wasn't even cold. Besides, how is any president supposed to prevent every terrorist attack in the world? If you're going to blame President Obama for the Libyan embassy attacks then Bush should get the blame for missing 9/11.

Presidents aren't "gods" that can prevent every terrorist attack in the world. The truth is that no president can micro-manage every embassy and consulate in the world to stop any and all attacks. It should also say something that when the Libya attacks happened, the people of Libya took to the streets to protest the terrorists. They expressed apologies to America for the death of our ambassador and showed support for America. That's the kind of support in the Islamic world that had been lacking under President Bush. That's progress that can't be ignored. The Libyan embassy attack was tragic but the full story out of Libya is that while there are still pockets of terrorists left after the Libyan revolution, most Libyans are very supportive of America.

As for Iran, the most recent sanctions instituted by President Obama, and other world leaders, have been very effective. According The Guardian, these sanctions have been "unprecedented." "Now, as sanctions compound the country's economic woes, that red line appears to be disappearing, with many officials, finding their leader's old rhetoric untenable, publicly expressing concerns about the country's crumbling economy."

The Obama White House has been able to get a diverse group of countries to join hands and unite to block Iran's nuclear intentions. They have enacted some of the toughest economic sanctions against Iran in history. It sounds like Mitt Romney's answer to Iran is another war in the Middle-East and I don't think that's a wise policy, fiscally or politically. Iran is nearly twice the size of Iraq with a much better and bigger military. This is especially reckless talk from Romney given he has no foreign policy experience. It should remind us of another Republican president who talked the same way about possible military intervention. Need I remind you of President Bush talking tough about having to invade Iraq? And how did that go? Not so well.

In respect to the Syrian civil war, President Obama knows that it is more complicated than Libya where America was able to intervene with air support. Syria has complicated alliances and arming the militias means some weapons getting into the hands of Islamic extremists. In addition, Iran is very close to Syria and could retaliate if America gets too aggressive. Romney has criticized Obama for supposedly not doing enough on Syria. But, what would Romney do that Obama hasn't already? Essentially, the only option left that Obama hasn't pursued is to declare war on Syria. Is Romney calling for a war with Syria, in addition to armed intervention in Iran? This loose talk about war is reckless.

President Obama has been a cool, calm and steady hand in facing a complicated, diverse world. He has been an American president that the world respects, so do we really want to go back to George W. Bush style foreign policy? Because Romney's opinions on war and the Middle-East aren't much different than those of Bush.

---End of Transmission---

Gas Prices Going Down Help Economy.

Recently there have been a lot of good indicators for the economy. Unemployment has dropped to 7.8% from a high of 10%. According to The Guardian, 7.8% is the lowest unemployment rate since President Obama won the presidency. In addition, the housing market is improving. U.S. News Money reports that the number of new homes being built is at its highest rate since 2008. The lowest level since Obama became president.

Adding to these positive gains is the news that gas prices are going down. The price of fuel has dropped 8 cents in just over 2 weeks!! That's a big drop in prices for just a 2 week period!! This is a great help for for those having to pay for heating oil during the upcoming winter. Gas prices going down are like a tax cut for employees commuting to work and for stay-at-home spouses driving a lot to get the kids to school and run errands.

It's getting harder and harder for Mitt Romney to say the economy is getting worse, not better without sounding like a kill-joy rooting for bad economic news for political gain.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Amendment 64 to Legalize Marijuana Has Supporters from Both Democrats and Republicans.

The U.S. State of Colorado is about to legalize marijuana and herald the beginning of the end on marijuana propaganda and prohibition. A recent SurveyUSA poll asked likely Colorado voters about Amendment 64. The poll revealed a five-point advantage coming out in favor of the bill at 48 percent to 43 percent [...]. 

TPJ: Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it isn't working with marijuana. Especially considering that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not cause overdoses. According to Carrie Click with The Aspen Business Journal, Amendment 64 is popular with Democrats and Republicans alike:
The economic factors of passing the bill are compelling. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. According to economist Christopher Stiffler at the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, the number could be as large as $60 million dollars added to state coffers by 2017. The study also concludes that a windfall of $12 million in instant savings will occur in the year following legalization because of reduced legal, court and prison costs. Annual savings (compared to a pre-legalization year’s budget) will approach nearly $40 million once the legal system adjusts to the decrease in crimes eliminated by the bill’s passage
An estimated $24 million in new tax revenue generated from excise taxes on wholesalers will go directly to the Colorado Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund, which will help create over 372 new jobs from school construction projects [...] With those numbers, it’s no surprise Amendment 64 is receiving support from both sides of the aisle in Colorado. Many members of both parties have abandoned the former partisan stances and gotten behind the bill out of its pure economic upside.
TPJ: The key here is jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs in a new industry in everything from farmers to accountants. Colorado could be the next Sonoma Valley (California Wine Country). But, as usual, the DEA is resisting a new, educated, policy on marijuana. According to journalist Carrie Click:
According to the US Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the legalization of marijuana still violates federal law. If passage of these measures takes place in any or all states, some warn that it will lead to a "constitutional showdown,” as federal law maintaining the illegality of the drug still preempts state law.  
TPJ: The DEA worries about a "constitutional showdown" between state and federal law on marijuana legality? That's exactly the kind of fear-mongering that I'd expect from a losing side, desperate for maintaining a failed system. Maybe it's time to have a "constitutional showdown" and force the federal government to take a fresh look at the futility of fighting marijuana. I think a lot of Americans believe the old, entrenched ways of Washington deserve a shake-up. The status quo (on many issues) just isn't working anymore. I think the problem is with the government, not the people. The people are waking up and realizing that they've been lied to about marijuana, and are tired of otherwise law abiding people going to jail simply for using a substance, pot, that doesn't cause overdoses, unlike alcohol!! No more wasting money and lives!!

---End of Transmission---

Who Supports Women Most, Obama or Romney?

Women are becoming the key voting bloc in America, and since women are a deciding factor in elections, I thought it would be informative to compare the records of both candidates. Mitt Romney claims that he'll help women get jobs and advance in the workplace. Yet, when he became Governor of Massachusetts, Romney didn't place women in political positions until a women's rights group prodded him by providing the governor with lists of qualified women. As David S. Bernstein reports:
Not a true story. What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected....Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.
To make matters worse for Mitt Romney, the women he did hire weren't usually in top, leadership positions. Bernstein goes on to write that even though then-Governor Romney appointed women to 42% of the cabinet positions, Romney supposedly only appointed women to "head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women."
Women need to ask themselves, if Romney can't be honest on the hiring of women then how can he be trusted to stand for women on anything? Especially when Mitt Romney has had a sketchy record on women's rights. He was pro-choice when he wanted to win over women voters in Massachusetts, but then when he wanted the Republican nomination for president Romney swung over to being pro-life. In 2007, Mitt Romney said, "I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states. I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted." 

Romney then doubled-down on those abortion comments recently, "I would love the Supreme Court to say, ‘Let’s send this back to the states,’” he said. “Rather than having a federal mandate through Roe v. Wade, let the states again consider this issue state by state.” “But I’m pro-life, that’s my view. I believe there is a sanctity of human life,” Romney added.

President Obama, on the other hand, not only supports women's right to reproductive rights but working toward pay equity. In addition to making it easier for women to find recourse for discrimination in the workplace. This can be seen in the very first bill he signed into law when he became president, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Where does Romney stand on this important advancement? As is typical with him, Romney's position is both opposition and support. First he opposed it and now he says he wouldn't repeal it!! But, if he won't repeal it then why won't he just come out in full support of the fair pay act? This from Obama deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter:
It’s troubling that Mitt Romney’s campaign still can’t get their answer straight on where Mitt Romney stands on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which gives women greater ability to enforce in court their right to fair pay. From the six seconds of silence six months ago when they were first asked this question, to a top aide’s walk back of a statement last night that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have supported the law when it was passed, the Romney campaign is making what should be an easy answer extremely complicated. But, for millions of women, there is nothing complicated about it. As the President said last night, this is not just a women’s issue, it’s a family issue and an economic issue. Three weeks out from an election, the American people need a clear and final answer on whether Mitt Romney would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law – and whether or not he would sign the Paycheck Fairness Act that President Obama has been fighting for.
The unemployment rate is coming down, so how can Mitt Romney say things are getting worse? It's more than Romney has done to help employ women. So, why can't Mitt Romney be truthful and trustworthy with women? What is he hiding and why can't he give women a straight answer? Maybe because Romney doesn't want women to know his true intentions.

---End of Transmission---

Housing Market Improving, Less Vacant Homes. New Homes Constructed at Highest Level Since 2008.

U.S. News Money (link): Throughout the country, homes that once sat on the market for years are now in demand. According to a survey conducted by housing research firm Metrostudy that covers 65 percent of the country, there are less than 30,000 vacant new homes on the market. In the pre-bubble housing market, there were typically 100,000. Last month, builders constructed new homes at the fastest pace since 2008.

The housing market improving is almost as big a deal as a lowering unemployment rate because it means people are building equity again. In addition, it spurs growth in construction, which has long been a reliable ingredient to the strength of the American economy. This fuels job growth for hard-working Americans who might not have a college degree but are just as hard workers (if not more so). 

Yet there is one segment of the population standing in the way of a furthering improvement to the housing market:
RAW STORY (link): US President Barack Obama urged Congress Saturday to pass a mortgage plan to help troubled homeowners refinance their loans and save $3,000 a year. “It’s a plan that we know will work,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “It has the support of independent, non-partisan economists and leaders across the housing industry,” he added.
The Republican Senators and Representatives in Congress opposed it. President Obama said, “It’s a no-brainer that should have passed easily.” It seems that Republicans are so blinded by their hatred for Obama that they are willing to stifle the health of the American economy to defeat him. It all to tell you everything you need to know about a party, Republicans, who would be willing to risk the detriment of the economy, just to win an election.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Hofstra University Debate Was Obama's Best Debate Performance Ever.

Last night, at Hofstra University, we saw the president we've come to know since 2008. Gone was the sluggishness of his first debate, and instead we saw a president speak directly to real voters. He commanded the stage while not coming off too intensely confrontational. He seemed to be enjoying himself and feeding off the audience while Romney floundered with specifics and missteps. At one point he was throttled by even the moderator for misleading the audience on the president's reaction to the Libya embassy attacks in Benghazi. As Rebecca Shapiro for The Huffington Post wrote:
Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley fact checked Mitt Romney after the Republican presidential candidate charged that President Obama failed to call the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an "act of terror." When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy. Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror. "He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said. "Can you say that a little louder?" Obama asked.
That quick-witted retort from Obama drew a laugh from the audience as they all knew Romney had been caught in another one of his lies. President Obama was clearly comfortable talking about women's issues mentioning how his first bill signed as president was the Lily Ledbetter bill that deals with the pay inequality between men and women. In addition, it was nice to hear him praise his single-mom who helped him succeed to the level he has reached. Mitt Romney, however, sounded out-of-date and borderline sexist when talking about women in the workplace. Amy Sullivan of "The New Republic" addressed this awkward Mitt best:
It’s fair to say that Mitt the Man did not have a great evening on Tuesday. He bragged about filling positions in his state cabinet by consulting “whole binders full of women,” sounding amazed that so many smart, qualified women existed while also calling to mind the days when men selected their mail-order brides from plastic binders of photos. He talked about how in a Romney administration, employers would be so “anxious” to hire good workers that they might even consider women. He fumbled an otherwise reasonable point about the connection between family structure and poverty (one key reason most anti-poverty advocates support family planning, sex education, access to contraception) by managing to sound like he was blaming single moms for horrific gun violence.
I think Mitt Romney honestly believes that his words about women are fine because his religion is very patriarchal. It denies women access to the Mormon priesthood and essentially subjugates them to cranking out babies, cleaning the house and making the food. He's not use to the subject matter of women's issues because his life experience is such that he has never really had to think about them. Especially since he raised all boys and not a single girl. It's tragic really, because I don't think he's a bad man, but I do think he's out-of-touch and clueless about a world where women are increasingly becoming the main income source in households today. He may not hate women, but he's got to talk about women in a modern tone because he's in a new era.

The last point I wanted to address was the "47%" remark. Romney teed it up by saying he would be the president of "100% of the country." Obama then made Romney look dishonest by reminding everyone that Romney said "47%" of the country are "victims" who take no "responsibility" for their lives. So, all in all, it was a knock-out win for the president. This will fire-up those supporters who voted for him last time because they saw the Barack Obama we knew in 2008. He showed independent voters that it's one thing to talk like a president, but another to be president. He looked comfortable last night as the president, showing why he's the president. That kind of image will go a long way in getting him support for a new four years that will continue to see the economy improve. Just like the unemployment rate has dropped into the 7% range, which is the range that got Americans voting for Reagan's re-election because psychologically it showed the trend was toward a new dawn for the American worker.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

President Clinton Explains Mitt Romney's $5 Trillion Tax Cut for Rich.

As President Clinton reminds us, no president could have completely reversed the Great Recession in just 4 years. 
Yet the unemployment rate is down to 7.8% and jobless benefit claims fell to the lowest level since President Obama took office in 2008. The economy is coming back, but a vote for Romney is to return to the Bush economics that caused the Great Recession. 

---End of Transmission---

Non-Partisan Kaiser Foundation Says 60% Of Seniors Would Pay More For Medicare Under Romney-Ryan Voucher Plan A new study out today by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation confirms what many have been saying for a very long time—the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan would result in six out of ten seniors paying substantially more for the same Medicare benefits they receive today. The study further found that the additional costs to seniors would vary from region to region, with areas of high per-capita Medicare spending seeing a cost boost for 80 percent of Medicare recipients.
This is a glaring example of dishonesty by the Romney campaign since they have stated previously that their plans wouldn't change anything for current seniors (link). Romney has also been dishonest on Medicare by saying $700 billion would be taken out of Medicare by President Obama, in order to pay for "Obamacare." The truth is that the $700 billion comes from savings accrued by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. So, in reality that money saved doesn't come out of the money allocated for the beneficiaries benefit (link).

President Obama and the Democrats have a much stronger track-record of protecting Medicare than Romney-Ryan and the Republicans. So, seniors, please ask yourself this question: Are your Medicare benefits worth risking to a man, (Romney) who isn't telling you the truth?

---End of Transmission---

Monday, October 15, 2012

Mitt Romney Misleading Women on Abortion Rights.

"Multiple-Choice Mitt" is at it again!! In a recent interview with The Des Moines Register, Mr. Romney took a softer stance on abortion than he had previously. He stated that if elected president,  abortion wouldn't be apart of of his agenda. This is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. During this entire election, Mitt Romney has supported strong anti-choice positions:

-He supported a reversal of the Roe v. Wade that allows for safe and legal abortion (link).

-He would end funding to Planned Parenthood, which gives low-income women reproductive services and cancer screenings at a reduced rate (link).

-He voted in Massachusetts to ban women from getting emergency contraception ("morning-after pill) (link).

It's obvious that women can't trust Mitt Romney to stand with them on reproductive freedom. The ease with which he shifts on women's issues should trouble everyone. As a husband, I stand with my wife in supporting women's rights. Please, stand with President Obama and voters like myself to reaffirm your support of women. Don't let Mitt Romney fool you--he's not trustworthy.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, October 14, 2012

President Obama and the Libyan Embassy Attack.

It's a cheap-shot that Republicans are trying to claim President Obama is weak on terrorism because of the Libya embassy attacks. If we can blame the Libya attacks on President Obama then isn't it fair to blame Bush for 9/11? I don't think Bush is responsible anymore than I think Obama was responsible for the Libya incident. No president can prevent any and all attacks ever on our embassies around the world.

But, to suggest that President Obama isn't a good leader on foreign policy is dishonest and ridiculous. This is the same man, Obama, who's command's have decimated the ranks of al-Qaeda's leadership. He's the leader who targeted Osama bin Laden and had him killed despite having to invade Pakistan's air-space to do so.

Are those the actions of a president without the courage and tenacity to defend America from all enemies, home and abroad? If you think the answer is "yes" then I'd suggest you see a doctor because you're probably delusional.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, October 12, 2012

A Fired-Up Joe Biden Won the V.P. Debate Against Paul Ryan.

After Romney's pathological lying took President Obama off-guard in the first presidential debate, Vice-President Biden more than got the Obama-Biden campaign back on track with an impressive debate performance last night. His 4 decades of experience making tough decisions and studying the issues carried him through the night to expose the chasm of experience between himself, and Paul Ryan. I hear Republicans today whining about Biden asserting himself with Ryan at times throughout the debate. They must have forgotten the first presidential debate when Romney was the one interrupting President Obama.

The Romney-Ryan debate strategy is to lie through their teeth and talk as long as possible to take up all the time making it harder for the Obama-Biden side to respond. Joe wasn't going to put up with such tactics. So, being that scrappy, regular guy from Scranton, Pennsylvania, he made damn sure that the lies from Ryan were knocked down one by one, rather than go unanswered out of politeness as Obama did. That required Biden to cut Paul Ryan off when he started talking dishonestly. If you don't get a word in edge-wise with the Romney-Ryan ticket, they'll just filibuster and lie, leaving your wondering what just happened. Besides, a debate is supposed to be spirited and lively. In addition, Ryan did his own interrupting, so don't give me this whining to the refs routine after losing a debate. I don't know many people who have political debates who don't get a bit fired-up like "Average Joe" Biden.

So, let's get to some specifics. Ryan tried to come off as fiscally conservative criticizing the stimulus dollars infused into the economy by the Obama administration to stem the hemorrhaging of the American economy. Well, as usual, the Romney-Ryan team was misleading but Joe wouldn't let them get away with it. He called Ryan out by exposing that Paul Ryan himself asked for stimulus dollars to help his district increase jobs!! So, I'd then ask Ryan, "How exactly is taking stimulus money in keeping with your claims that the stimulus spending was a bad idea?" Clearly, you thought the stimulus was needed if you took the dollars. To paraphrase Jesus, "By their actions you shall know them."

Then on Afghanistan, Ryan tried again to mislead saying the Obama administration was is wrong in wanting Afghans to take over the fight for their own country. Apparently Romney and Ryan want to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely!! Biden knows this war is unpopular and has gone on too long, which is why he said Obama would end the war and bring home our brave soldiers by 2014--period. It's time for the Afghans to fight for their own freedom, we can't stay there forever. Especially when we need to rebuild the American home-front. And, as Biden said, ending that war would cut spending by $800 BILLION!! I think Joe Biden's many years of experience on the foreign intelligence committee served him well, last night.

Anyone who thinks Biden was too tough needs to reassess how the real world works. When you're in negotiations with difficult foreign leaders and they try to filibuster you then you have to be assertive with them. You can't whine and complain that those foreign leaders are "being too tough." Joe Biden showed that he has the scrappy ability to handle anything that comes his way. One thing is clear, Biden would be a much better president should something horrible happen to our president than Paul Ryan would.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Claims for Unemployment Benefits Fell to the Lowest Level Since 2008.

UPIThe U.S. Labor Department Thursday said first-time jobless benefits claims fell to the lowest level since February 2008 in the week ending Saturday.

In other good news for the economy: The US economy picked up in September despite weak momentum in consumer spending, a Federal Reserve survey of regional economies published Wednesday showed (Agence France-Presse).

When you combine the recent drop in the unemployment rate to 7.8% with this impressive drop in unemployment claims, it's clear that the economy is improving. Yet Mitt "Debbie Downer" Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan want you to believe that things are only getting worse. So, perhaps we should ask the question, "Why are Romney and Ryan not being honest about the economy?" The answer is clear that they are rooting for a worsening economy because they think it will help them win the election. Now that the economy is picking up steam, it's frustrating to see the Republicans so cynical about positive news. 

Surely the American economy is more important than an election!! These are people's lives that are being positively changed by these numbers. Our family recently went through a period of unemployment, but my spouse found a new job that actually pays better than the last one!! We are average, middle-class, folks who are simply thankful to have a job, so to hear Romney and Ryan bad-mouth the recovery makes me disgusted. Romney may not think it's 7.8% unemployment is good, but to my family who has finally escaped unemployment, this new job means everything. So, if you ask me, "Have things gotten better for you in the past four years?" I'd give you my honest answer of, "Hell, yes!!" 

Pessimism has never been conducive to a thriving economy or government. It's not American to talk-down good news. Let's take these positive numbers and build upon them, rather than tear them down and re-start "Bushonomics" again. Remember where that left us? In the jaws of the Great Recession. 

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Watch Mitt Romney Debate Himself with Contradictory Views and Lies.

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up? He'll say anything to win. One minute he'll stand for a position, but wait a day or two and he'll change that position to the opposite one!! It's maddening!! I could get people to vote for me too if I shamelessly lied through an election. I'm worried that people just now paying attention to the election won't realize Romney has been lying about nearly all of his positions. Up until the recent Denver debate he was saying very conservative things, but now he wants you to believe he's a "moderate." Don't fall for his bait and switch scam. He's not being honest. But, you don't have to believe me. Do a little research and you'll see that I'm telling the truth.

---End of Transmission---

GM to Add 2,000 Jobs in Michigan. No Thanks to Romney!!

PHOTO CREDITGary Tramontina/Bloomberg/Getty Images

General Motors Co. and the state announced Monday that GM will create 2,000 new jobs in Michigan, beginning with up to 1, 500 at a new information technology innovation center in Warren. From The Detroit News:

There's a strong argument to be made that those jobs wouldn't be here if Romney had his way by letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt!! The blue-collar worker is roaring back stronger than a V-10 engine. Plus, when you take into consideration the newly lowered unemployment rate, (7.8%) it's becoming very difficult for even the strongest cynics to say the economy isn't improving.

The auto loans extended by President Obama (now mostly paid back) literally were a lifeline to the entire state of Michigan and Ohio. You see, President Obama isn't just president for the top 1% while discarding "47% of Americans" as Mr. Romney does. His lifeline to the auto industry shows that when the middle class needs a fighter, they can do no better than Barack Obama. I'm so proud to hear my fellow blue-collar workers are back on the job in Michigan and Ohio!!

---End of Transmission---

Monday, October 08, 2012

Mitt Romney Defends China over American Workers.

As head of his "vulture capitalism" firm, Bain Capital, Romney praised the profitability of shipping good, blue-collar jobs to China. 

Shipping jobs over-seas is not a policy that has helped the American middle-class and it shows how dangerously out-of-touch Romney is toward the average working family.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, October 06, 2012

Did Mitt Romney Lie at the Denver Debate? Hell Yeah!!

During the debate, Romney said his health care plan (such as it is) would cover people with pre-existing conditions. That people who don't have coverage for a pre-existing condition can buy coverage. He kept saying in the debate that his plan would help them buy one. He lied. And then after the debate, his adviser Eric Fernstrom says, actually it only covers people who've had continuous coverage, paying into their health insurance since they were very young and never got very ill.

Romney knows that most people don't pay attention to presidential elections until the debates are aired. So, he lies about his health care proposals and positions when millions are watching, for the first time, to attempt conning them into believing he's a moderate. But then, the next day, when the millions aren't watching his advisers quietly tell the media, never-mind. He "made a mistake." But, what are the chances the millions who tuned into the debate for the first time also tuned-in to hear the Romney adviser correct the Romney lie? Not highly likely. It's the old, "bait and switch" con (click on this sentence if you want to know the definition of the bait-and-switch con. In specific  look for the section on "politics").

He did the same thing after he made the "47%" remark labeling those Americans as people who think they are "victims" owned everything they want. Now, yesterday, he's saying that he shouldn't have said it. Well, the question we'd all like to know, Mr. Romney, is how do we know the real you? Are you the Mitt Romney who insults 47% of American workers as being "victims" or the one who showed up to the debate the other night in Denver?

Romney is a fraudulent person who has no problem lying to millions of Americans, so long as it suckers them into voting for him. A person with that little integrity for himself is dangerous, especially as president. If he'll lie that much, and that often to the American people about his political plans, then how can anyone of us trust anything that comes out of his mouth?!! You can't. He's all over the map on his views, and personally, that disqualifies a candidate.

Obviously, it's dishonest but it's poor campaigning because it's hard to keep up with the ideological shell-game!! Successful candidates have consistent messages and plans. Unless, they are a con-artist like "Multiple-choice" Mitt who will say anything, and be anyone to get people believing he's something that he clearly isn't. If you are just tuning-into the presidential race, then be careful. Mitt Romney is a shameless liar. Go back and read up on what Romney has said up until this point. You'll be surprised.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, October 05, 2012

Unemployment Rate Lowest Since 2009.

The new unemployment rate released today has lowered below 8% to 7.8% which is the lowest rate since January 2009!! Mitt Romney keeps lying though saying that our economy is getting worse, but the rest of us know how do math and understand percentages. It certainly isn't lowering fast enough for anyone, but even the Great Depression took longer than four years to turn around. Turning an economy around the size of the American economy is a bit like turning around a giant ocean liner, it takes a long time.

Yet, the American ship is turning steadily now in the right direction away from the icebergs. So, for Romney to keep ignoring these numbers shows how much his campaign is dependent upon bad economic news. It makes him look like he's rooting against the economy in hopeless enough Americans vote for him out of impatience.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Romney Lied His Way Through the Denver Debate.

Today, some in the media are saying Mitt Romney "won" the presidential debate last night in Denver. He certainly bullied his way into dominating the discussion by: ignoring the moderator, and his rules, talking over President Obama and lying better than a snake-oil salesman. I suppose anyone could appear to win a debate if they were willing to lie enough. President Obama summed it up perfectly this morning. "When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn't of been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year, promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy."

If you haven't paid attention to the presidential campaign until last night then you might think Romney was Santa Claus offering everything to everyone without explaining how he does it!! For example, last night "Pinocchio Mitt" claimed he doesn't have a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy. You might believe it except for this reality as reported by "Think Progress":
A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.
Then, "Doctor Romney" went on to claim his health care plan would end pre-existing conditions. This from "Think Progress":
In one of the more outrageous distortions of his own policy positions, Romney claimed that “preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” This too is completely untrue. Romney’s actual position, as his own top strategist admitted immediately after the debate is that only people with continuous insurance coverage would be guaranteed insurance if they have a pre-existing condition. It’s worth nothing that this isn’t even an improvement from the status quo, it’s been the law since 1996. So in reality Romney’s plan would continue to allow insurance companies to deny coverage to millions of Americans with preexisting conditions.
So, what does Obama do to expose the fraudulent Romney from last night? As the great, Andrew Sullivan said today, call Romney's bluff:
So the obvious response to this new Romney is to say: now you've gone into a debate and denied you are lowering taxes on the wealthy: Prove it. Show us where the new revenues come from or at least which are on your chopping block (sorry, PBS won't solve the problem). The end of all corporate welfare? The end of the mortgage deduction? The charity deduction? Where is the money coming from? More to the point, you have to provide much more savings in the tax code than Simpson-Bowles, if you are also going to take us to higher-than-Cold-War "defense" spending, as you have also promised. How will that not mean a net shift from the already struggling middle class to the super-rich?
Romney may, or may not, win the election but he should certainly win an Oscar Award for "Best Actor."

---End of Transmission---