Observations on the 2012 Election 10.23

Last night was the third and final presidential debate between President Obama and Willard. I don't think they have been anywhere near as important as some would have us think. The polls really are skewed in a way but not by any side or the other trying to make them look good. They are skewed by the facts of a modern election. Despite all the Republican attempts to stop it in some states for the first time more people may have voted before election day than actually vote on it. Also I don't see how it is possible to look at these two men and be undecided, seriously, if you are undecided at this point you are probably undecided about a lot of things in life.

But if you really are still undecided I'm writing this in an attempt to sway you. Below you will find all you need to know about Willard Romney. What he wrote about the auto industry bailout in The New York Times back in 2008 and what he said on the same subject during last night's debate. I think the few paragraphs I'm posting are enough to make my point but if not at the bottom you will find links to the complete Times piece and the full debate transcript.

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By Mitt Romney
Published: November 18, 2008
"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check...."

Presidential Debate
October 22, 2012
Romney: "I’m a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars. And I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry. My plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need, these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they’d, they’d built up."
President Obama: "Governor Romney, that’s not what you said…"

As I said last night; game, set, match President Obama.

Romney Opinion Piece
Debate Transcript

Observations from the Window 10.20

I was going to write this earlier but I thought it would be better if I waited till I wasn't quite as irritated as I was. Irritated isn't the right word, I was totally disgusted. At Tuesday night's debate Katherine Fenton, a 24 year old kindergarten teacher, had the gall to ask Willard what he would do about the gender wage gap. In his answer Romney explained how hard it was to find qualified women to serve in his administration in Massachusetts and dropped the now infamous "binders full of women" line. For her efforts, and like Sandra Fluke before her, Fenton has now had her name trashed from coast to coast by the neanderthal press.

Nobody has of yet called her a slut but they have called her a feminazi, a party girl, and a member of some phantom left wing conspiracy to destroy the American dream by making women equal partners in it. They scoured her Facebook page and Twitter account, which has since been deleted, and discovered that, omg, she liked drinking and sex. She wasn't ladylike enough, she likes manly things, and to top it off she wrote about in public when she should have at home cooking dinner. The wingnuts love to talk about terror and well they should because they win more elections on pure fear than anybody has since the Civil War. Isn't something like this just terrorism in a different form? When it's a man it's a "pointed question" but when it's a woman asking it suddenly becomes personal, your'e just a slut.

I've never really thought of myself as a feminist, I don't like having to 'be' anything, but maybe it's time I did. Seriously if the wingnuts and angry old white men are so scared of the term it must be good for something. Just think about it, if women were to trash a man for asking a simple question there would be hell to pay. But they are allowed. Don't dare call fat Limbaugh fat but somehow Candy Crowley's weight can be an important issue for post-debate discussion. They are allowed. Think women are equal in today's America? Like many minorities they may feel equal but under the nice calm surface of equality a woman is one pointed question away from being just another slut.

I was going to leave a link to the article that totally disgusted me but I changed my mind, why give them the traffic, and after my rave review you probably wouldn't read it anyway. Instead I'll leave a link to a Raw Story article on it and finish with a paragraph from the same.

"The article, published anonymously, alleged that Katherine Fenton’s Twitter account “reveals that purple Joose is her choice to get blackout drunk and she has a history of getting wet at happy hour.”
The article also highlights sexually suggestive messages Fenton allegedly sent from her Twitter account. The Twitter account cited in the article no longer exists."

Published anonymously, fucking cowards.

Observations 10.13.1

This week in the Party of Lincoln, Part 2 ....

In Thursday night's VP debate the final question from moderator Martha Raddatz was on abortion. At one point during his answer Paul Ryan said; "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination." My translation would be 'we don't think what is constitutional, legal, or what a woman chooses to do matters. We think conservative, religious, wingnut men should decide this issue.' Suckit Ryan. For the record ABC's Raddatz was totally awesome.

To Ryan's credit earlier in the week he revoked his endorsement of Wisconsin state Rep. Roger Rivard after Rivard's challenger, Stephen Smith, revealed that 10 months ago Rivard had said "some girls rape easy." Rivard claims his comment was taken out of context.

Now, for the main part of this post, I give you Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri who is running for the Senate seat held by Democrat Claire McCaskill. After Akin made his comments about the female body being able to shutdown in cases of "legitimate rape" Republicans all called for him to drop out of the race. At the time McCaskill stayed away from the issue unless she was asked. Anybody who follows politics knew why, she was waiting for the day McCaskill could no longer drop out and the GOP was irrevocably stuck with him as their candidate.

Wednesday was a day all political freaks were waiting for as McCaskill dropped the proverbial hammer and released three new ads in a 'it ends now' moment. All three ads feature women who were raped, two of which say they are pro-life, and one who says she is a Republican. The videos speak for themselves so I'm posting one video here with links to all three below it.

link Diana
link Rachel
link Joanie

Published on Oct 10, 2012 by ClaireMcCaskill2012

Margaret Atwood, the Canadian novelist, once asked a group of women at a university why they felt threatened by men. The women said they were afraid of being beaten, raped, or killed by men. She then asked a group of men why they felt threatened by women. They said they were afraid women would laugh at them.

Observations on the 2012 Election

The vice presidential debate is tomorrow night and it seems to be up to VP Joe Biden to make us all forget President Obama's dismal performance in last week's debate. What Biden needs to do is force Paul Ryan to talk actual facts and figures when discussing the GOP budget plans yet not let him look like he is smarter than the rest of us. Ryan supposedly knows more about the budget than anybody in Washington and could make all our heads spin if given the chance.

While I'm looking forward to Biden's 'happy warrior' side I also hope he doesn't get too happy and stick his foot in his mouth. The media needs to be talking about the this debate and not the last one but for the right reasons. He needs to be in the form he was in for a 2008 Democratic presidential primary debate in which he had this to say about then GOP candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; “There only three things he mentions in a sentence: A noun and a verb and 9/11, I mean, there’s nothing else.” Sadly I guess he should refrain from using the f-word too.

Looking ahead to the second Presidential debate I have faith President Obama will come back strong against Willard. The format is town hall style so more suitable to the President. Also Bain and the 47% video are sure to come up with the public, or the public as the Gallup people see it, asking the questions. But if I were given just one political wish it is that this man could fill in for Obama for just one night ....

link

Observations on the 2012 Election 10.4

I know, I know, calm down, this too shall pass. Willard looked good in last night's debate, like he was giving a presentation to some board of directors, and President Obama didn't look his best, like he would much rather be somewhere else on his wedding anniversary. But when all the dust settles the President will still be ahead and in all likelihood Romney will have stuck his foot in his mouth again or had it forced there by his VP choice Paul Ryan.

I only found one thing troubling last night and that was the fact that neither Bain or the 47% video were mentioned even once. After some thought I finally decided it was on purpose, it had to be on purpose, and came up with my theory on Obama's performance last night that I think is as good as anyone else's.

Last night's debate was heavily scripted and played to Romney's strong suit, speaking to a board of directors or in a planning meeting of some sort. It was totally wrong for Obama who is at his best when he is talking to real people. If you don't believe that simply Google Obama at a rally in Denver today. My theory is that Obama decided to let Romney have his best shot, pass the baton to Biden next week, and take Romney head-on in the second debate with its town hall format where Bain and the 47% are sure to be questioned. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the President just didn't show up for some reason, either way Willard can't perform like that for another month. The only problem is in the perception because in politics if you aren't winning you seem to be losing.

One other thing that is certain after the debate is that Romney is every bit as good a liar as his partner Ryan. Hopefully next week Vice President Biden doesn't let Ryan get away with it without challenging him. I honestly can't see why anybody would decide to vote for Romney when so much of what he said last night was simply not true. But than I remembered a quote from an old Seinfeld episode.

"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

10/5 update - From Mother Jones today; "On a conference call with reporters, a defensive David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, noted that the president's supporters would have liked to see Obama slam Romney on Bain, tax returns, and the 47 percent video. But, he added, "a lot of these issues are well known to the public," and Obama's "choice was to talk about the main things people are worried about in their lives." Obama, Axelrod said, had wanted to avoid an insult-fest and instead use the debate to discuss the future. He did note that following the debate the campaign would "make some adjustments.'"

Observations on the 2012 Election 10.3

Tonight is the first of three debates between Willard and President Obama as the Presidential election campaign enters its final phase. No matter what the talking heads on both sides say I have to wonder just how important this phase is. Early voting has already begun in seven states, the latest being the all important Ohio where it began yesterday. Still a committed political geek can't help but be excited if just for the debate's entertainment value. The entertainment started early when poor Willard couldn't even get his campaign through debate prep without messing up. It was leaked by his handlers that during debate prep Willard had been given a bag full of 'zingers' to use on the President. This is nothing new, unless they are literally talking about twinkies, but you aren't supposed to announce it ahead of time. It's supposed to at least seem like the candidate came up with them on his own.

Something sure to be debated after the election is the effect that the billions of dollars poured into the campaigns by corporations had. This is the first Presidential election since the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in 2010. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, said that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations or, as Willard himself put it, corporations are people my friend. It just doesn't seem to be having the effect the Repubes and wingnuts wanted but it still needs to be overturned, something that should be high on any list of possible legislation for an Obama second term.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice John Stevens who showed how strongly he felt by actually reading a large part of it from the bench. Stevens than retired as the third longest serving justice in the history of the court. Below are a pair of excerpts from that opinion, if you are brave, bored, or just a total political fool like me you can read the complete opinion here.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races....

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

If you got this far thanks for reading and that concludes today's lesson. Don't forget, the circus begins tonight at 9 PM Eastern.