After watching the debate, I understood what the Associated Press meant when they said they had to put a quota on correcting Michele Bachmann’s lies during the primary debates. Thank God this one was limited to the economy and health care, or who knows if Romney could have broken Bachmann’s record. I counted 23 lies, but I've seen counts as high as 27. Assuming that they each split the 90 minutes evenly, that's a lie every two minutes. My son didn't have that problem when he was a toddler.
I can’t believe so many think Romney won last night’s debate. Apparently, those who did were looking at style, and ignoring the words coming out of the candidates’ mouths. Good thing voters aren’t as dumb as most pundits. Mark my words; seniors and those who have worked for 30+ years who hope to be seniors one day were horrified by what they heard, no matter how animated Romney was in saying it.
Romney actually said he plans to KILL Medicare as we know it. The program that you and/or your parents rely on for medical care after you retire, will go away eventually, if Willard has his way.
I also don't get a sense that Romney understands how the program works, anyway. For example, when the candidates were discussing Medicare, Romney promised that he could add a prescription drug program, if it was needed:
If you live in a swing state as I do, you’re probably already sick of being inundated with massive political ads. This one, however, is just a little different. Here, Actor Samuel L Jackson uses a now-infamous children’s book as a premise for a short piece urging voters to Wake Up and realize what Obama stands for, and what we risk with a Romney presidency.
It's fascinating to watch Willard Romney self-destruct, although don't feel too gleeful; the one thing that could make him squeak through is overconfidence on our part. Besides, making sure President Obama wins isn't enough, anyway. It's not good enough to just get more votes than Republicans; it's time we obliterated them, politically speaking. It's time we stopped obsessing on individual Republicans, and start highlighting their positions on the issues, which are offensive, and hurt the country
If you haven't seen the videos, you should. You can probably skip the last 15 minutes, so it'll only cost you about 20 minutes of your life. And it'll be worth it. Watch them here. What you will see is a man who represents exactly what the current incarnation of the Republican Party truly believes to be true. Many will pretend not to believe that, but when Romney suggests that anyone who would vote for a Democrat is somehow dependent on government, he's not violating Republican orthodoxy, he's expressing it in its rawest form. The current incarnation of the GOP truly thinks that everyone who receives a government check for anything is completely dependent. Well, except for defense contractors. Oh, and oil companies.
If you doubted Republicans felt that way before, the video should make that clear now. And if the video doesn't convince you, then check out the new op-ed piece Willard penned for today's USA Today. The headline actually reads:
The current incarnation of the Republican Party simply doesn't care about anything but money, and the people at the top who have most of it. They no longer care about you or me, or anyone who isn't among the elites in this country.
What Willard Romney said in May in front of his rich investors (and let's face it; no one donates $10 million to anyone without expecting a return) shouldn't actually surprise anyone; this is how the current version of a Republican thinks; that people with lots of money are the brains behind the country, and all the rest of us are just a bother. Ironically, the biggest freeloaders in this country are among the richest companies and people in the world, and the states getting the most actual welfare are red states. Also, consider the fact that the guy who handed you your fries paid more in payroll taxes than Wlllard Romney paid in income taxes that one year he's let us see so far, but he thinks that rate is too high and should be cut in half.
President Obama's convention speech last night was nothing short of brilliant. But that shouldn't be a surprise, since nearly all of his speeches are brilliant. He touched on all the right themes, and demonstrated once again why he deserves a second term. As everyone who reads this blog knows, he has done a lot as president, despite having to work around some really significant obstacles. If you haven't read the list I compiled of President Obama's accomplishments, you owe it to yourself to do so, and pass it around to everyone you know.
In a normal election year, I wouldn't be worried. President Obama is the best candidate for president, by far. Willard Romney, for all of his business "accomplishments," simply doesn't have the knowledge of what it means to run the government. His only experience in government was four years as Massachusetts governor, and that experience was apparently so bad, he won't even talk about it these days.
But this isn't a normal election year. Progressives made a statement in 2008, and Barack Obama won in a landslide. It was the largest margin of victory by any Democrat since LBJ, and it felt great. We did it through positivity. Obama and progressives pushed a positive message that resonated with people of all ideological stripes, and we echoed that. We need to do that again.
But we all stumbled badly in 2010. The negative rhetoric against Democrats caused many potential voters to stay home, and we allowed Tea Party Republicans to take control of the House and also come within a hair's breadth of taking over the Senate, too.
In her speech at the Democraic Convention, First Lady Michelle Obama pointed up the stark difference
between her husband and his challenger quite well with the following statement:
"Barack knows the American Dream because he's lived it,
and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity, no matter
who we are, or where we're from, or what we look like, or who we love."
Ultimately, the main difference between Obama and Romney is
that President Obama lived the dream that most of us imagine and aspire to, while Romney has
lived a different dream, and can't seem to relate to what anyone else has gone through. r
That's not to discount Romney's version of the American
dream. There is nothing wrong with being born rich and privileged. But that rich person has to understand that a decision to run for public office is a decision to become a
servant of the people. That equires you to make a concerted effort to learn and understand how the rest of us live.
I'm not saying Romney's an ogre who hates people. I'm saying that he simply show no sign that he understands how the other 99% of us lives. That doesn't make him a bad person, it just disqualifies him from the presidency. Or should.
Here's the latest episode of my podcast, in which I discuss a must-have app for political junkies, why Ryan and Akin should be joined at the hip in our rhetoric and why Blue Dog bashing is killing the progressive movement.
After the tragic shooting at the Sikh temple, I once again got to thinking about the prevalence of guns in this country. But just as importantly, it got me to thinking about racism and bigotry against people who are perceived as different. The concept of "different" is related to the concept of "normal," in that there's no static definition of either. We're all different. My two brothers grew up in the same household, but except for the slight physical resemblance, there are few other commonalities. Consider your family; every one of you has at least one uncle or cousin who's not like anyone else.
Being different can't be a basis for much of anything, because the only thing everyone in this country has in common is that we're American, or aspire to be. Otherwise, we're all different. So why do we we seem to always have that small-but-loud segment of society that simply has to treat group of people who are supposedly "different" as less than human? Why do we allow certain people to operate under the impression that they’re better somehow, by virtue of the color of their skin, their gender, their religious beliefs, their mode of dress, their sexual orientation, or any of a number of other purely arbitrary factors, such as their chosen profession?
I understand that the United States isn't alone. Hate exists all over the world. But most of them don’t bill themselves proudly as “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” and tout themselves as a “melting pot.”