Category Archives: Romney

Romney Won The 2nd Debate After All.

Posted on by

While most polls and political pundits gave the advantage to the President in the second debate, Mitt Romney did win on two accounts: Disrespect and Lies.

Despite having agreed to a long list of rules for the Town Hall Debate, which included an agreement that neither candidate directly address the other or venture into the other’s space, Mitt Romney literally got in the face of the President.  He also directed a barrage of questions at the President rather than go through the moderator.  The effect was to seem unnecessarily confrontive and even disrespectful of the President.

Romney may not respect President Obama, but he should at least be respectful of the office. Moreover, Romney’s bossy attitude demonstrated that he lacks the temperment to negotiate with world leaders.

As for the ability to stretch the truth and tell lies to support his arguments, Romney was, once again, the overwhelming winner.

He was not only caught telling a lie about the President’s address on Benghazi.  He lied about the number of women who lost jobs in the past 4 years.  He misstated his opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  He didn’t tell the truth about his position on contraception.  He lied about his recommendation to let Detroit go bankrupt and, therefore, fail.  He lied about his tax proposals.  He was wrong about the increase in healthcare insurance over the past two years.  He lied about his proposal to limit Pell Grants.  And he lied about the President’s energy policies, including the delay of the XL Pipeline.

In other words, Romney demonstrated that he is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.  But he definitely demonstrated that he is qualified to be Liar-in-Chief.

For more Romney-Ryan lies, read The Teapublican Book of Lies available at Amazon.com and other on-line bookstores.

“Fraudulent,” “Fantasy,” “Con Game,” “Mathematically Impossible.”

Posted on by

These are the words used to describe the Romney-Ryan budget plan by economists, The Washington Post, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Bloomberg News.

Mitt says his plan will cut taxes for all Americans, increase defense spending and still cut the deficit.  And, get this; he claims that his plan will be “revenue neutral.” He says that the costs will be offset by the elimination of tax deductions.  Yet he steadfastly refuses to provide details.  The only cuts he’s mentioned are funding for Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood.

In fact, after more than a year of campaigning for the office of President of the United States, Mitt has not provided any numbers for his plan…until tonight.

During the second debate with President Obama, Mitt announced the number five…in reference to his 5-point plan for the economy.  But don’t expect Mitt to provide any details for that plan, especially with regard to his budget figures.

He either can’t, or won’t.

Romney can’t explain his budget plan.  Liein’ Ryan can’t explain it.  And one of the campaign’s top surrogates can’t explain it.  When Sen. Marco Rubio was asked by Lawrence O’Donnell to name the tax deductions that would be eliminated, he admitted he couldn’t name a single one.

Instead of offering details about his plan, all Mitt says is “trust me.”  Now, tell me, Mitt, why would we do that?  You say one thing today. Then a day or two later, you say something else.  You’ve had at least four answers to every question.  Indeed, you’ve had more positions than the Kama Sutra.

When it comes to your economic plan, Mitt, I’ll trust the opinions of President Obama, President Clinton, most independent media, and non-partisan economists.

Racism By Design?

Posted on by

Since 2009, a certain percentage of Americans have been outraged that our president is black.  In Arizona, knuckledraggers drive around with Confederate flags in the back of their pickups in protest of President Obama. And, throughout the country, Tea Party rallies have been dominated by racist posters and threats.

Therefore, it’s not surprising that someone recently attended a Romney event wearing a t-shirt that read:  “Put the white back in the White House.”

Of course, Romney’s campaign later distanced itself from the message and apologized for the shirt.

Nevertheless, that shirt made me think:  Why did the Romney campaign choose white yard signs to advertise their candidates?  Is it a subtle reminder that Romney’s opponent is black?  Now, I realize that may seem like a stretch, but I’ve spent most of my adult life as an advertising creative director.  The decision to choose a design for campaign signs is an important one.  Every detail is thoroughly considered and debated.  Nothing would be taken lightly.

Just sayin’.

Time To Call The Churches’ Bluff.

Posted on by

Since the formation of the Moral Majority in the late seventies, many churches have immersed themselves in politics.  Pastors, particularly evangelical pastors, have implored their flocks to vote for Republicans despite Internal Revenue System rules which prohibit a non-profit 501c3 from engaging in politics at the risk of losing its tax-free status.

Yesterday, pastors across the nation challenged the IRS rules by telling their members how to vote based on the churches’ stances with regard to abortion, gay marriage and other so-called “values” issues.  In other words, they told their members to vote for Romney.

The churches even recorded their political messages with hopes that the IRS will attempt to change their tax status.  Apparently, they believe that any such attempt by the IRS will result in a backlash, unleashing them to take any political stance they want.

The churches consider it a First Amendment issue of free speech.  They assume the conservative Supreme Court will see it their way.  At the very least, they assume a Teapublican-controlled Congress will pass a constitutional amendment in their favor.

However, the issue is not about free speech.  It’s about taxes.

Certainly, pastors and churches have the right to make any political statements they want.  And the IRS has the power to determine their tax status. If pastors want to use their unique status as “spiritual” advisers to engage in partisan politics, they should be held to the same standards as any other Political Action Group.

The Etch-A-Sketch Debate.

Posted on by

We should have seen it coming.  For months, Mitt Romney ran further and further to the right.  Then during last night’s debate with President Obama, Romney did an about face.  Living up to the Etch-A-Sketch strategy that Mitt’s campaign manager promised following the Teapublican primaries, he abandoned most of the right wing rhetoric and ideas he promoted in the primaries and promised to be a moderate healer, instead.

Defying arithmetic, he promised to increase spending for the military, cut taxes for everybody, cut healthcare costs while repealing Obamacare, increase spending for education and student loans, increase spending for Medicare and Medicaid, maintain Social Security and create 12 million jobs.

Whew!

And, of course, while doing all that, he promises to cut the deficit and the national debt – all without revealing a single detail or plan other than to say he would cut funding for PBS and Big Bird.

Disregarding the fact that there is no possible way to pay for his promises, has he forgotten that he’s living in the 21st century?  We have an endless number of video recordings which show him saying that he will privatize Social Security, voucherize Medicare, slash Medicaid spending, eliminate the Department of Education, cut taxes for the wealthy, cut taxes for businesses, eliminate tax deductions for the middle class, cut Pell grants for students and turn back the clock on healthcare.

About the only thing consistent with his statements in previous speeches and debates was the promise to increase defense spending even more than the Department of Defense has asked for.

Of course, political pundits have already concluded that Romney won the first debate.  If so, it was only because President Obama couldn’t tell who he was debating.  It wasn’t Mitt.  It was some guy who looks like Mitt but who was espousing a completely different platform from the plutocrat who won the Teapublican nomination.  That Mitt was decidedly anti-middle class, anti-woman, anti-health reform, anti-green energy, anti-small business, anti-entitlement, anti-education, anti-government, anti-environment, and pro-war.

It’s not easy debating someone who’s willing to lie about absolutely anything and everything to get elected.

Obama’s America In 2016.

Posted on by

The shockumentary “2016” provides one man’s view of what America will be like in 2016 should President Obama be re-elected.  The future it portrays would be dim, indeed, IF this example of Teapublican propaganda were true.

But “2016” is based on a false premise…that President Obama is un-American.  That he’s a socialist out to destroy the very nation he has sworn to protect.

In truth, given his history of accomplishment against long odds, no one represents the American Dream better than Barack Obama.  And despite Teapublican rhetoric (and the film’s premise), Obama’s policies are decidedly not un-American.  In fact, the reverse is true.  It is the continuation of Teapublican policies that threatens to undermine our democracy.

For 40 years, the GOP (Guardians Of Privilege) have weighted tax cuts to aide the wealthy and large, multi-national corporations.  They have engaged in union-busting and cut funds for the poor.  They have used those in the military to pursue their goals of international domination and they’ve abandoned them as soon as they were injured or retired.  In order to win election, they have vilified teachers, firefighters, our postal service, government employees and immigrants.  In order to maximize the profits of multi-nationals, the GOP has proposed to eliminate the agencies responsible for clean air, clean water and product safety.  GOP policies have even rewarded those who ship jobs overseas and who take advantage of offshore tax havens.

President Obama threatens to change all that.  He dares to propose tax fairness, higher standards for fuel efficiency, sustainable forms of energy, investment in infrastructure, improved education and incentives to bring jobs home to the US.

So every time you see an ad for “2016,” imagine how much better off we’ll be with President Obama in the White House than with Mitt the Twit and his 47 percent-hating plutocrats.

Who’s Really Redistributing Wealth?

Posted on by

Following the “Mitt Happens” moment in which Romney was caught on video disparaging the 47 percent who pay no income taxes, Teapublicans have countered, claiming that President Obama and the Democrats are guilty of trying to “redistribute wealth.”

Apparently, they believe Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, GI Bill benefits, Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps are evidence of “class warfare.”

Fact is, redistribution of wealth has occured since the beginning of graduated federal income taxes in 1862.  The idea was to ask the wealthy to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than those who are less fortunate.  Our tax code embraced the idea until the election of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s flawed policy of “Trickle Down” economics greatly reduced tax rates for the rich while, at the same time, increasing taxes on the poor and the middle class.  Indeed, one of the largest tax increases in history was Reagan’s elimination of tax deductions for interest on loans: car loans, college loans, credit card loans, etc.  Now who do you think was harmed the most by that change?

Around the same time, Reagan eliminated the estate tax (aka the “death tax”) so the wealthy could pass their accumulated wealth to their children without penalty, and Teapublicans cut the capital gains tax rate paid on earnings from stocks and other investments.

More recently, the infamous Bush tax cuts were also weighted to benefit the wealthy.

But that’s only part of the redistribution of wealth upward.  During the past 40 years, multi-national corporations have been given a host of unfair competitive advantages over their smaller competitors.  Teapublican policies not only encouraged them to ship jobs overseas. They allowed multi-nationals to shelter income overseas in order to avoid paying taxes to the very government responsible for their success.

Meanwhile, small businesses and ordinary citizens have been asked to take up the slack.

The result of all this is the hollowing out of the middle class, the destruction of our domestic manufacturing base and the deterioration of our infrastructure.  It has led to higher unemployment, lower federal revenues, decaying cities, higher poverty and millions without access to basic healthcare.  Over the same time period, the wealthy have gotten even wealthier.

Class warfare, indeed!

A Political Party So Obstructionist It Even Opposes Itself.

Posted on by

For years, GOP governors have asked for changes in the welfare reform bill of 1996.  They wanted more flexibility in how states measure work requirements, hoping that changes would help even more people move from welfare to work.  Even Governor Mitt Romney supported such changes in 2005.

Upon the recommendation of his Health and Human Services department, President Obama endorsed the changes.

Of course, that meant Teapublicans had to oppose the changes.  Mitt Romney and his Wisconsin partner-in-lies immediately went on the attack, saying “President Obama wants to eliminate the work requirement for welfare.”  They even made a TV commerical repeating the lie.

On Thursday, Liein’ Ryan and his obstructionist House-mates made it official.  They voted against the welfare changes that their own party requested.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who has followed Teapublican hypocrisy over the past four years.  Following the Inauguration-night strategy meeting during which Teapublican leaders vowed to block every initiative by President Obama, they have steadfastly refused to support the administration even if it means attacking their own ideas such as Romneycare…er, Obamacare.

Is it any wonder Congress hasn’t been able to pass tax reform and jobs bills?

The Real Mitt Romney.

Posted on by

By now, you probably know that the Teapublican presidential nominee earned hundreds of millions as one of the founders of Bain Capital.  But how much do you know about how a venture capital company works?

(Hint: It uses roughly the same tactics that made the Mafia one of the most hated crime syndicates on Earth.)

Don’t believe me?  Take a look at Matt Taibbi’s fine article in Rolling Stone magazine.

It’s Not Just About The 47 Percenters.

Posted on by

The video of Mitt Romney’s speech to a Florida gathering of the wealthy shows his utter contempt for much of America.

Who are those he considers to be “freeloaders?”  They are not the “welfare queens” and lazy louts you might expect.  The 47 percent who have not paid federal income taxes in the past few years include the working poor, the elderly, veterans, military who are serving in a combat zone, even the wealthy who have enough tax write-offs to zero out their federal income taxes.

But Mitt didn’t limit his disparaging comments to the 47 percent.   He also went out of his way to insult Latinos and other minorities.  And he again inserted his highly polished loafers in his mouth with regard to foreign policy.

He said that Palestinians do not want peace, so as president, he would just kick the issue down the road.  After all, by Mitt’s standards, the Palestinians trapped in Israeli-controlled ghettos don’t earn enough money to be of consequence.

None of this should come as any surprise to those who have followed Romney’s career. 

As a vulture capitalist, he showed complete disdain for those who lost their jobs as the result of his hostile takeovers and business conquests.  His tax-evading investments in offshore accounts display a lack of patriotism for the country that allowed him to accumulate wealth.  And his trip to Europe during the Olympics showed his incompetence and lack of tact with regard to foreign policy, leading European media to label him “Mitt the Twit” and the “American Borat.”

So let’s review: Contempt for nearly half of our voters, dismantling American companies and shipping jobs overseas, legalized tax evasion, and arrogance in dealing with foreign leaders.

Exactly why should anyone other than the very wealthy vote for you, Mitt?