As we enter the last, (thank God), week of the 2012 Presidential Campaign....
monday quote(s): The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have too little. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, President, 1882-1945)
If we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead. (Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio, 1974- .….)
A few days ago, The Boston Globe reported on Mitt Romney's treatment of Massachusetts gay couples during his tenure as governor in an article titled ROMNEY REJECTED NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR GAY PARENTS, by Murray Waal. “It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law. But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.
He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.”A good summary of the issue was reported by Michelangelo Signorite here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/romney-some-gays-are-actu_b_2022314.html
what eye thynk: This sickens me. And it frightens me.
I found the original Boston Globe story so over-the-top-hateful that I couldn't believe this was entirely factual, so I did a lot of investigating. The whole situation was widely reported at the time, especially in Massachusetts, and all the facts seem to match. I found numerous references to Romney’s quote on gay families: “Some gays are actually having children. It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact”. I even found one reported instance where a married, heterosexual woman became the surrogate for a gay male couple. Despite the fact that one of the male partners was the sperm donor, Romney's staff insisted that the surrogate mother's husband be listed as the father on the birth certificate.
This negative stance on surrogacy matches the Mormon church’s policies which state that surrogacy is “discouraged”. Apparently, Mitt saw himself as the self-appointed surrogacy cop whose mission was to keep the infidel from propagating. (Of course, if you happen to be one of Mitt’s off-spring, having two children by surrogacy will yield no church sanctions. Apparently the rules are different for royalty.)
If you are planning to vote for Mitt Romney because you think he will protect your interests, think about this fact: during his Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, he promised to stand up for the rights of that state’s LGTB community. How protected do you think those gay parents felt after they helped to elect him?
A man who is so adept at concealing the malignancy that is his soul should not be rewarded with the Presidency of the United States of my America. We are more than this. We are better. We are straight and gay, black, brown, red, yellow and white, old and young, male and female. We are the huddled masses, and we ALL yearn to breathe free.
??? Is anybody as sick as I am of hearing Mitt Romney say “I know how to (enter subject of your choice here)” without offering any details? And of hearing people say they are voting for Mitt Romney because “He knows how to (blah, blah, blah)", without knowing any details?
Mitt, the question isn’t if you KNOW how--the question is HOW. And, people, just because he says he knows doesn’t mean he does. Really, I can tell you I know how to re-design your plumbing, but if you're dumb enough to hire me without asking for details, you better be wearing waders the next time you walk into your bathroom. THINK!
BUSINESS LEADERS DEMAND DEFICIT DEAL, EVEN WITH HIGHER TAXES, New York Times editorial, reproduced in The Seattle Times -- Finally, Republicans I could talk to! Eighty chief executives from major U.S. corporations realize that spending cuts alone will not reduce our deficit. They are stepping up to form a lobbying group in support of higher corporate taxes to go along with spending cuts--something President Obama has been championing for years.
"The partisan rift over taxes has blocked a deficit-reduction deal for two years, and spilled into the 2012 campaigns; now business leaders are stepping up pressure on Congress to get a deal even if it calls for more revenue, including higher tax bills for themselves...The executives warned that the uncertainty spawned by the deficit, which has topped $1 trillion for four consecutive years, is dampening hiring and investment, and stifling the fragile economic recovery."
1. First we have Todd Akin, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Missouri: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
what eye thynk: There actually are historical opinions in both church and medical writings that a uterus must be in a “state of excitement” in order to conceive; but these writings date from the 19th Century! This man is a full blown nut case who wants to return us to the 1800s and he wants to help run my country? (Who needs modern science? It’s all a liberal conspiracy!)
2. Then there is Joe Walsh, Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois. When asked about exceptions in cases of rape or the life of the mother he had this to say: "This is an issue that opponents of life throw out there to make us look unreasonable. There's no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology. Health of the mother has been, has become a tool for abortions any time under any reason." When questioned further, he added: “With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" in which a woman would actually die.
what eye thynk: Exhibit B--Nut Case No. 2! Exceptions are unnecessary because we can cure anyone of anything!
I can’t help but wonder about the “life of the mother“ exception that keeps popping up. No matter whether you believe it should or it shouldn‘t be an exception, either way begs the question: Why does the life of an embryo deserve so much more protection than the life a fully corporeal woman? Did the entire conservative population of the United States wake up one morning and discover that they were blessed by God with the right to choose who lives and who doesn’t?
3. Most recently we have Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana: "I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
what eye thynk: Yes, Richard Mourdock is God’s personal assistant, put on earth to keep us informed of God’s intentions. I feel so much better. When Mr. Mourdock reaches that age when “performing” is difficult, do you think he’ll recognize his impotence as God’s intention or will he be popping a couple of Viagra with his morning O.J.?
4. And, of course, we have to consider Mitt Romney.
During his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, his platform stated “The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
As governor he vetoed a bill that would allow rape victims to be given information about emergency contraception. The state legislature voted to override his veto.
In October 2011, when asked if he would support a constitutional amendment that would establish the definition of life at conception, he answered “Absolutely”. His campaign site boasts this position: “Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade", which would, of course, make any abortion illegal.
In August 2012 he was quoted as saying, “My position has been clear throughout this campaign; I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.” A few hours later, his campaign tried to clarify Mr. Romney’s stand by saying that he would approve of abortion only to save the life of the mother--rape and incest were off the board.
In October 2012 Mr. Romney told the Des Moines Register that he would block American family-planning funds to any foreign health center that “provides, refers for, or even takes a pro-choice position on abortion”.
what eye thynk: So Mr. Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life before he was pro-life sort of. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would make ALL abortion illegal, but thinks it would be okay to save the mother. (Would that be before or after all abortions are rendered illegal?). And he thinks rape and incest victims should also be exempted…no wait, they’re off the exemption list…yes, uh no, er maybe I didn’t mean that…ummm. I’ll have my staff get back to you.
"My position has been clear throughout..."?! He has had so many positions on this issue that it’s a wonder he hasn’t hired a full-time staff member to follow him around and try to explain his opinion d’ jour. I mean, really, he couldn't even stay on message during his one term as governor!
. My final word -- All of these men claim to be conservative Christians. I find it insulting that they believe me incapable of making my own choices; and I find it appalling that they claim Christ as their guide on this.
When did Christianity and misogyny become synonymous? I guess I slept through that Sunday school lesson.
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have been raking in the endorsements this past week with major newspapers in Florida and Ohio splitting between the two candidates. (I did enjoy the fact that Utah's Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed President Obama, saying of Mitt Romney: "...we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney's domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.")
When New York City's Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was pressed to add his endorsement, he declined to support either man. His thoughts regarding both of them were quoted in yesterday's New York Times.
While I can somewhat agree with his assessment of Mitt Romney, I think Mayor Bloomberg is hiding behind his Republican blinders with his comment on President Obama. To me, a "fair share" would mean that multi-millionaires like Romney pay the same percentage of their income in taxes that I do.
He had nothing to say about Paul Ryan. His take on Joe Biden is dead-on. Mayor Bloomberg's comments:
monday quote(s): On Romney - "I do think that Romney's business experience would be valuable, but I don't know that running Bain Capital gives you the experience to run the country."
On Obama - "This business of 'Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?' Who are you to say "Somebody else's fair share?'"
On Biden - "Some people say he just goes off; I would say he’s a principled guy."
SCOTT'S STORY AND THE ELECTION, by Nicholas D. Kristoff -- Mr. Kristoff writes of the death of his unemployed friend who could not afford health insurance. The callous responses he received reflects the Republican every-man-for-himself attitude that makes me sad for my country. Note the comment about the elderly, (underline is mine). If a Democrat had said anything even remotely like this, the right would be screaming "Death panels!" at the top of their lungs.
"'Not sure why I’m to feel guilty about your friend’s problem,' Terry from Oregon wrote on my blog. 'I take care of myself and mine, and I am not responsible for anyone else.'
Bruce wrote that many people in hospitals are there because of their own poor choices: 'Smoking, obesity, drugs, alcohol, noncompliance with medical advice. Extreme age and debility, patients so sick, old, demented, weak, that if families had to pay one-tenth the cost of keeping the poor souls alive, they would instantly see that it was money wasted.'
MITT ROMNEY'S VERSION OF EQUAL RIGHTS, New York Times editorial --- I know this is a little stale, but it is a good summary of Mitt's take on equality for women...obviously a subject I think is one of the most important in this election. In trying to show how well he treated his female employees, he told how he allowed them to go home to cook dinner. This did not make my heart go pitty-pat.
"Flexibility is a good policy. But what if a woman had wanted to go home to study Spanish? Or rebuild an old car? Or spend time with her lesbian partner? Would Mr. Romney have been flexible about that? Or if a man wanted similar treatment?
True equality is not satisfied by allowing the little lady to go home early and tend to her children."
Jim Corsi, writer for World Net Daily and author of "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President" traveled on the Mitt Romney campaign plane this week. Beyond his birther creds, Mr. Corsi is known for other inflammatory anti-Obama statements such as:
Obama is secretly gay
Obama was secretly married to his Pakistani roommate
Obama was a frequent visitor to gay bars, especially on Wednesdays when he liked to pick up older white guys
Obama is familiar with the Chicago bathhouse scene
Obama is secretly Muslim
Obama's wedding ring is really a "secret communication, like it's a wink-wink, and 'I'm with you' to Muslims"
Obama is practicing taqiyya, which is supposedly the belief that it is okay for followers of Islam to mislead the infidels
When the Mitt Romney campaign was questioned on why they had welcomed a nutcase like Jim Corsi into their press corps, they had no comment. I am having trouble feeling the inclusiveness that Mitt wants me to believe his campaign stands for. Does hate-mongering mean something different in Romney-speak?
May, 2012 - Mitt Romney was secretly taped at a Florida fundraiser.
September, 2012 - The video was released and we all witnessed Mitt Romney saying that 47% of Americans thought of themselves as victims and that it was not his job to worry about them. When questioned, both he and Paul Ryan spent weeks saying that the statement was "not elegantly stated" but was essentially correct. Mitt claimed it was the same message he used in his public speeches. (I must have missed that part.) His poll numbers dropped--a lot.
October, 2012 - Romney is now presenting himself as the champion of the middle class and telling everyone who will listen that what he said was "totally wrong". He has even co-opted President Obama's phrase, "and those who are trying to move up to the middle class" in order to include the poor in this attempt to prove himself reformed.
what eye thynk: The problem with Mitt's new I-Heart-Peons theme is that none of his anti-middle class/poor policies have changed one whit. I guess we're not supposed to notice that.
This complete change in position is so obviously phoney and self-serving that I am in awe.
1. I just came across this in some notes I made right after the first presidental debate but never got around to posting it. In his editorial titled "Moderate Mitt Returns", New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about Mitt Romney this way: "At long last (he) began the process of offering a more authentic version of himself."
what eye thynk: Authentic people don't have versions...that's what makes them authentic.
2. The Republican campaign insists on ignoring easily checked facts regarding the deficit. Romney: "The President said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it."
what eye thynk: The truth is that, no, President Obama did not reach his goal of cutting the deficit in half, but he didn't double it either. The deficit was $1.19T in January 2008, it reached $1.41T in 2009, today it is $1.09T.
I don't know what math system Romney is using, but where I went to school 1.09 was less than 1.19, not double.
3. In answer to a question on abortion during last week's vice-presidential debate, Paul Ryan said, "We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination."
what eye thynk: If I have to choose who would be fairest to judge an argument on any issue, not just Roe v. Wade, I would choose an unelected court using existing law and precedent over a politician relying on his personal opinions while trying to impress his party or his home district.
I realize that even the Supreme Court, can lean conservative or liberal depending on its make up, but they are still free to interpret existing law without fear of being removed from the bench in the next election.
That being said, my body is not a vessel for democratic discourse. Any discussion on the subject of what to do with my uterus should be between me, my family and my doctor. My congressman doesn't get a vote.
THE SELF-DESTRUCTION OF THE 1 PERCENT, by Chrystia Freeland -- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/the-self-destruction-of-the-1-percent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 A well written and intelligent opinion piece that compares Venice’s decline from one of the richest cities in Europe to its fall from financial grace in the 17th and 18th centuries to what is happening in the U.S. today. Basically, when the rich find ways to keep more for themselves while excluding others from a chance to move up, they end up killing off their own support system.
“The crony capitalism of today’s oligarchs channel(s) the state’s scarce resources in their own direction. This is the absurdity of Mitt Romney’s comment about the ‘47 percent’ who are ‘dependent upon government’. The reality is that it is those at the top, particularly the tippy-top, of the economic pyramid who have been most effective at capturing government support--and at getting others to pay for it….Most lobbying is pro-business, in the sense that it promotes the interests of existing businesses, not pro-market in the sense of fostering truly free and open competition.…the inevitable danger is that (the very rich) will confuse their own self-interest with the common good. The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice’s oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them.”
WHY RYAN WOULD WASH A CLEAN POT, by Steve Benen -- http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/16/14478736-why-ryan-would-wash-a-clean-pot?lite I wrote my Romney-is-a-hypocrite post earlier today and then came across this. Apparently Paul Ryan and family stopped at an Ohio soup kitchen on Saturday, and, finding that the food had already been served, the patrons were gone and the kitchen pretty much cleaned, they still put on clean aprons and spent a few minutes wiping out a couple of pots so photographers could record them being nice to the little people. Seems like hypocrisy is another attribute that Romney and Ryan share.
In campaign speech after campaign speech, Mitt Romney faults President Obama for not being tough on China and pledges that he will get tough on China starting on his first day if office.
what eye thynk: Romney as Hypocrite is in full bloom on this issue.
In 1998, while still in charge at Bain and after a visit to China, Mitt Romney spoke to the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston describing a Chinese factory where people “were working, working, working as hard as they could, at rates of roughly 50 cents an hour”. This was presented to explain and recommend that U.S. companies could profit by sending manufacturing jobs there. Sadly, I find it very easy to imagine his excitement at this chance to take advantage of the poor--even if they are in another country.
Today, Romney has approximately $2.25M invested in three Bain funds, all of which have large stakes in at least eight Chinese businesses…where people continue to work, work, work for wages that a Bain confidential prospectus quotes as 85% lower than wages paid in the U.S. This prospectus continues to promote Romney’s original recommendation that moving jobs to China will result in higher profits. As a matter of fact, Bain is currently in the process of closing an auto parts factory it recently acquired in Illinois and moving allthose jobs to China. And, yes, Mr. Mitt (I-Will-Get-Tough-On-China) Romney will profit from that too.
Mr. Mitt (I-Know-How-To-Create-American-Jobs) Romney seems to be missing in action at this point.
When questioned about the profits he is personally making on moves like this, he responded: “Only the president has the power to level the playing field in China. No private citizen can do that”. So, in other words, its legal and he’ll continue to profit from it while also continuing to rage at the current administration that it is not only unfair but is destroying the economy of the country that he says he wants to lead and whose economy he says he knows how to fix. Following that chain of rationalization makes me dizzy.
Bain’s official response to the same question was that its Chinese holdings “are consistent with the widely accepted principle that the private sector has a critical role to play in the continuing interdependence of the world’s economies”. Which sounds to me like an escape hatch for a Romney presidency to continue the siphoning off of American jobs.
Simply put, this boils down to the fact that Romney continues to use current government policies to rake in every penny he can while at the same time campaigning against current government policies that allow him to rake in every penny he can...even if it costs American jobs.
Romney and the rest of the Republican party keep saying that we need to keep taxes low for the rich because they are the job creators and reducing taxes even further will create jobs.
??? Using the Republican argument that low taxes equals job creation, and considering that the 10 most profitable corporations in the U.S. paid only 9% in taxes last year and that taxes for the individually wealthy are at the lowest point since 1992, shouldn’t we be seeing jobs popping up all over the place? They’ve had 20 years of low taxes--where are all the jobs that this is supposed to create?
WHAT LURKS IN ROMNEY'S STILL-UNRELEASED TAX RETURNS?, by Douglas Stumpf -- http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/10/what_lurks_in_romneys_still-un.html This editorial was published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, normally a fairly conservative newspaper. It speaks to an issue I raised in a post back in July when I wrote about Romney wanting to run this country without having to pay for its maintenance. The underlines are mine.
"(Mr. Romney's) 2011 return has 267 pages devoted to offshore corporations and partnerships...Frankly, there is nothing shocking or wrong about rich people making foreign investments. Their first priority is to make more money, no matter where. But that's why giving them huge tax breaks and gaping loopholes on the theory they will invest all the money saved back in America doesn't make sense. They might invest in America, but just as often they might put their money, as Romney has, in Chinese oil companies... Ann Romney played the victim card, going on TV to claim the "more we release, the more we get attacked." Let's just point out that Obama released 12 years of his returns. But, as Ann Romney surely knows, hers and 'her husband's are not garden-variety returns. Bermuda shell corporations, Swiss bank accounts, investments in 30 offshore corporations and partnerships in tax havens -- and this in just the two Romney returns prettified for public consumption -- raise important questions about Mitt Romney's commitment to America. They will be answered only if he comes clean with the rest of his returns."
Following their Summer hiatus, the U.S. Congress reconvened on August 3. They broke again on September 21 to allow members to go home and campaign to keep their jobs. During their most recent time in Washington, the Senate was actually in session eight days, the House was in session ten days. Both houses of congress also decided to not discuss any important legislation until after the November election when both parties hope that the congressional numbers will be more in their favor.
what eye thynk: So basically, they decided to sit in Washington and not work for nine weeks, before going home to tell their constituents how hard they're working for us. We're paying these guys $174,000 year to work part time!
And it gets better...President Obama wants to lift the federal salary freeze that he implemented in 2010, which means our part-time congressmen could get a pay raise next year. What a great gig!
Aside from their inability to put together a 40 hour work week, their collective decision to do nothing constructive until after the election is unconscionable. They are, quite simply, holding the country hostage to their own ambitions.
Awhile ago I posted an opinion that congress should be paid like piece-workers: create a piece of legislature that can pass both houses of Congress and that the President signs into law, and then we’ll issue you a paycheck. This would certainly eliminate the filibuster/vote blocking/dig in your heels and refuse to compromise attitude that has all but de-railed our federal government.
While I recognize that a piece-work congress is a fantasy, term limits shouldn’t be. It is time to face the fact that congressional longevity doesn’t result in congressional productivity. The argument against term limits has always been that it takes time to find your way around Washington politics and that experience is important. (Of course, this argument is made by those most likely to lose their jobs were term limits implemented.)
Let's be honest here...the most important job in our government is that of President, and if he can be expected to figure out the lay of the land inside of four years, I’m sure Congress can do the same. Design the congressional election cycle so that only half are up for election every four years resulting in a congress made up of experienced veterans half way through their eight year term and newcomers arriving with fresh ideas and fresh energy.
Romney says he wants to run the country more like a business. In this case, he may be onto something. In the real world, if you only showed up for work eight days in nine weeks, and, while you were there, refused to do anything until your best friend got hired too, you wouldn’t be employed for long.
With a pay rate of $174,000 a year, I doubt we’d have any trouble finding competent men and women who would respect the job enough to value accomplishment over obstructionism, especially when faced with the impermanency of their position. "I helped pass an infrastructure bill that is putting thousands of people to work rebuilding our roads and bridges" looks a lot better on a resume than "I voted 'no' on everything so that the other party would look bad".
Mitt Romney gave his first major foreign policy speech on Monday. Not surprisingly, he condemned everything President Obama has done since taking office.
what eye thynk: Romney talks, makes up his own facts and then repeats them to the Republican faithful who swallow them whole. They don’t seem to notice that what he is saying is either an outright lie or the exact opposite of what he said just a short while ago. Listening to his speech on Monday, it was like he sat down, created the world he wanted to run against and then wrote a speech about it. (Truth? We don't need no stinking truth!)
Last month, Romney’s foreign policy advisor, Robert O’Brien, called President Obama’s focus on foreign policy “a distraction” that Obama was using to take attention away from domestic problems. On Monday, Mr. Romney said that the President hasn’t put enough focus on strengthening our foreign policy agenda. (One or the other, Mitt; too much focus or not enough, which is it?)
Last year Romney said that the President was too aggressive in his approach to helping Libya’s rebel forces overthrow Qaddafi. He said it would end in “massive strategic failure”. On Monday, Romney presented his opinion that President Obama is being too passive in his support of Syria. “The president has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.” He failed to note that we have been sending assistance to the Syrian rebel forces for months. (So Romney wants us to be passively aggressive or is it aggressively passive?)
As for Israel, Romney claims that President Obama has “thrown allies like Israel under the bus”. Even Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak disagrees. Last year, speaking of Israel and President Obama, he said, “I can hardly remember a better period of American support and backing, and Israeli cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.“ Yes, we are currently at a crossroads with Israel over Iran; but Mitt and his buddy Bibi, need to admit that last week’s riots in Iran over their failing currency are proof that the sanctions we have put in place are having an effect. (Does Romney really think that starting another war would be a better answer? Oh, wait, that‘s right, he stated his Middle East foreign policy earlier this year: “You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem… and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”) I feel better already!
But the most egregious example of Romney’s ability to make facts up out of whole cloth is this tailor-made dandy: “The president has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years.” Apparently Mr. Romney missed this 2011 Fox News headline: "Obama Signs Three Trade Deals, Biggest Since NAFTA". One of those agreements was with South Korea--an agreement that Mitt’s running mate, Paul Ryan, voted for! (Or then, maybe he really didn’t since in Mitt-land it never happened?)
So, another Romney speech, another batch of lies, another collection of complaints. I just wish someone at one of his rallies would stand up and ask, “But, Mr. Romney, what would YOU do? And, please, Mr. Romney, be specific”.
Mitt Romney might want to remember this the next time he decides to stand in front of the American people and lie for 90 minutes: It doesn't matter if you can keep a straight face, (though that excessive blinking is a dead "tell" that even you don't believe what you're saying), it doesn't matter how forcefully you speak--you can't run from your record.
monday quote:Facts are stubborn things. (Ronald Reagan, President, 1911-2004)
DON'T MESS WITH BIG BIRD, by Charles M. Blow -- "Big Bird and his friends...showed me what it meant to resolve conflicts with kindness and accept people’s differences and look out for the less fortunate. Do you know anything about looking out for the less fortunate, Mr. Romney? Or do you think they’re all grouches scrounging around in trash cans?
I know that you told Fox News this week that you were 'completely wrong' for making that now infamous 47 percent comment, but probably only after you realized that it was a drag on your poll numbers. Your initial response was to defend it as 'inelegantly stated' but essentially correct. That’s not good, sir. Character matters. Big Bird wouldn’t have played it that way." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/opinion/blow-dont-mess-with-big-bird.html?_r=1
During the 90 minute back and forth and mostly pointless bantering of last night's first presidential debate, one minor Romney comment caught my ear: "I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. We had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together". what eye thynk: Why is it that Republicans are all for bi-partisanship in theory but find it anethema in practice? I am so sick of hearing Mr. Romney and the rest of the Republican party talk about the need for bi-partisanship if the country is to move forward. If Mr. Romney, in particular, is really so fond of this "togetherness", he should have encouraged his fellow Republicans to try a little of it during the past four years. When President Obama took office, he invited leaders from both parties to the White House in an effort to begin the job of working together. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, voiced his response in an interview with National Journal's Major Garrett: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." And that has pretty much been the Republican party's answer to bi-partisanship for the past 45 months.
As Richard Mourdock, Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Indiana was quoted as saying in an MSNBC interview earlier this year, "I certainly think bi-partisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view".
Despite Mr. Romney's self-serving endorsement of bi-partisanship, the current Republican party frowns upon moderation and sees compromise as a four letter word. Mr. Romney may like the way he "did it in Massachusetts"; but Washington Republicans measure progress, not by what is accomplished, but by what has been denied.
Two candidates for the U.S. Senate race in North Dakota were quoted in news stories this past week. Republican Rick Berg: “Everyone is pretty likeable. The issue is not about a personality contest. This whole thing kind of boils down to, do you want someone who is going to fight against Obama", and Democrat Heidi Heitcamp: “I fundamentally believe we need to get partisanship out of governance if we are going to get anything done”.
That sure boils the problems in Washington down to the lowest common denominator.