Lying – Sin or Salvation

by Ruth A. Sheets

Lying used to be seen as the practice of the unholy.  Yet, these days, self-confirmed Christians lie with impunity.  In fact, many politicians now consider lying an effective victory strategy. 

In a culture where winning is everything, lying is certainly acceptable if it gets one to the desired end.  Why?  Why are we OK with lying and deceit, expecting it from our leaders.  Even though it isn’t true, we constantly hear “Well, everyone does it.”  Does that somehow make it right?

Mitt Romney has taken lying to a new height, at least in our lifetime.  He has said so many different lies that he can’t even keep track of them anymore.  And, the most disturbing thing, he seems sure of each statement’s truth as he says it.  He exudes a positive manner with each lie.  He is like the kid who truly believes he had nothing to do with the fight even though he is right in the middle of things with a bloody nose.  He can’t imagine how anyone could accuse him of lying or anything else .

Mr. Romney is so entitled and has been all of his life, believing that everything coming from his mouth must be true since he said it. A pronouncement from the lips of Mitt Romney should be taken as gospel no matter how often it contradicts what he said previously.  Expedience works really well for him.  Romney merely says what each audience wants to hear because that is what it takes to get elected in the warped America in which we live today.

A more interesting aspect of this issue for me is that when voters learn that Mr. Romney

has lied, and has done it over and over, they seem to like him even more.  The polls go up in his favor.  Do they really like liars?  

I am concerned that Mr. Romney can’t even tell the difference between when he is lying and telling the truth.  He does the lying with such ease and conviction that listeners who do not dig deeper can be convinced that he has always held this particular position and is being honest.  I have to admit that this to me, borders on mental illness.  I recognize the value of people who are living with mental illness, but do not want my president to be thus afflicted.

I keep hearing from Republicans that there is no racism on their part, yet, many Americans, professed Christians, religious people seem to want a serial liar over an African-American.  No racism?  Hmmm! 

Ruth's Real-Time Notes: Debate 3

Foreign policy

by Ruth A. Sheets

1. In his first statement, Romney said “We can’t kill our way out of our problems with Al Qaida.  We need a comprehensive strategy.

2. Obama reiterated his position mentioning his major foreign policy operations.

3. Romney answered back that his strategy in the Middle East is straight-forward.  He said we should go after the bad guys, the ones who attacked us.  He said we have to get the Arabs to fix things themselves by giving them better education, rule of law, of course, our law,

4. President Obama called Romney on his flip-flopping.  Romney answered back that that “attacking me is not a policy”, whatever that means.

5. Romney, when called on his statement that we should still have troops in Iraq, he tried to say he didn’t say that.

6. Obama says he wants our allies to help us in our efforts against terrorism and has a set of 5 things he would do for the countries in the Middle East, but warned that we should not be too involved with nation building until we have done nation building in America.

7. To a question about Syria, Obama said that we have to do what we do with the help of the rest of the region.  We are helping the opposition, but we have to know that it is a serious step to get more involved militarily in Syria.

8. Romney mentioned how important Syria is in the region.  The right course, according to him, is the same as Obama’s, enlist the help of the other nations in the area, making sure that they have sufficient arms to do the job.  We have to have a “very effective leadership effort in Syria.”  He believes that President Asaad will leave eventually.  He says it is a critical opportunity for America, but is vague as to what that role is.  We are to have the leadership role, but he is not clear what that is.

9. Obama answered that we have to be careful about our choices, as we were in Libya.  We have to have steady, thoughtful leadership when we act in Syria.

10. Romney says he does not want to have a “no fly zone” over Syria because he doesn’t want us to be militarily involved in Syria.  He wants us to arm the opposition in Syria.  He claims we should have taken some kind of super leadership role in responding to Syria.

11. Obama says that the reason he and Romney are both on the same page related to Syria is that we are doing just what we should be doing, taking a thoughtful careful approach to the problem.  We need to encourage and even pressure Egypt  to protect minorities and women.  We need to help Egypt to develop their economy.  The youth of Egypt have similar aspirations to American youth and we have to help them give their own people the hope for a non-corrupt government and economy.

12.Romney says he wishes we had a broader vision for what happened and the future of the Middle East before it exploded.  He is not clear what that means.  He says that we want a world at peace.  He thinks it is America’s job to promote peace.  He brought the discussion back to what he claims is a weak economy that means a weak country.  He just keeps saying the same things.  He wants an even bigger military.  He thinks that without their huge budget, our military will not be able to promote peace as well as we want.  (What a bunch of bull.)

13. Romney had the next question too, what is America’s role in the world?  He says we need to end conflicts in the world and so America must be strong, must strengthen our economy at home, and not have kids coming out of college with no jobs.  He went back to the military and how they need to be stronger (interesting that only a huge strong military can bring about peace in the world - NONSENSE!!)  Then he went into something weird about Poland.  I am not even sure what that was about.  He said we must stand for our principles.

14. Finally, Obama got a chance to respond.  He said that we as a nation are stronger now than when he took office.  He, too, brings the debate back to American jobs, economy, energy, etc.  They really don’t want to talk about the rest of the world. 

15. Romney responds, and we got his first sneer that was audible.  He keeps claiming that he knows how to get us back to work.  He claims he will increase our energy so that we will be energy independent.  He wants to focus on Latin America.  Then he wants to have training programs, then blames the teachers again and wants to get rid of teacher unions.  What a bunch of bunk!  He wants to “champion small business.”  He claims that small businesses are at their lowest point in 30 years.  He does not say where he got that data.

16. Obama responded by giving some specifics of what he will do the second term. He says that Romney should ask teachers what they need to make things better.  I am sure Romney thinks that’s a joke.

17. Romney, after trying to ignore his time as governor of Mass. now claims how proud he is of his time as governor and how well his students there did on the tests, as if that is all that counts in education.

18. When asked how he will afford a continued high cost of the military.  He goes on saying he will cut discretionary spending, cut Obamacare, etc, but never really addresses the fact that the military is bloated.  He wants to save Medicaid and give it to the states who have somehow proven they can handle it better than the federal government.  There is no evidence of that, however.

19. Obama mentioned that our military is larger than the next 10 countries combined. I think it is actually more like 17, but let that be.

20. Romney claims that he always balanced his budgets.  We don’t know what that means.  He says he will always balance the budget, but that shows he has no idea what a Federal budget involves.  He then claims that our Navy is the smallest it has been since World War I.  He does not take into account that the new weaponry and ships mean that we don’t need as large a military force.

21. Obama mentioned that even though the Navy is smaller in actual number of ships, our ships are better.   He said we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we had back then too because the technology has improved.

22. Israel and Iran – Would either candidate consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States?

23. Obama began by saying that Israel is our greatest ally.  We have a strong military and intelligence connection with Israel .  He reiterated that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon while he is president.  He mentioned that the Iranian economy is a shambles and we will help to keep there from being a nuclear race in that part of the world.  The sanctions offer Iran a way out, stop the nuclear move or face a world against them.  Sending young people into harm’s way should be a last resort.

24. Nuclear-capable Iran is not acceptable, says Romney.  He says our mission in Iran is to use a diplomatic way.  Even tighter sanctions, he says would work harder.  He thinks there should be diplomatic sanctions and we should treat their diplomats badly.  He says he thinks a military intervention would be the last resort if everything else fails.  How that is different from Obama’s strategy, I can’t see.

25. The deal we’ll accept, according to Obama, is ending nuclear aspirations.  Obama mentioned that we had to get the sanctions against Iran to be agreed to by most of the countries of the world before getting started.  The hope is that Iran will want to regain credibility.  We will not allow Iran to engage in negotiations that lead nowhere.

26. Romney claims that Iran looked at the Obama administration and thought it was weak and they could get away with things.  He criticizes Obama for his “apology tour” which has already been determined to be a “pants on fire”  lie.  He says that from the very beginning that a president must show strength (while he sounds like a wimpy kid/ bully who has no real idea of what is going on).

27. Obama called Romney on the lie, a whopper that he had taken any kind of “apology tour.”  Obama  mentioned that he had called the Iranians on their behavior.  He says we will continue to keep the pressure on Iran.

28. Romney says we are four years closer to a nuclear war with Iran.  He continues to lie and defend his lies, trying to explain them. 

29. Obama says he wants us to be able to be called the nation that stands on the right side of history.

30 Romney refused to answer a hypothetical question about bombing in the Middle East.  He just went his own way calling out disasters in the world that he really clearly does not understand, but is just naming, North Korea, 30,000 dead in Syria, etc.

31. It is hard to debate with Romney because he just keeps throwing things out.  His plans, although numbered, don’t give any details. 

32. Obama brought out the Bin Laden card.  He mentioned that when such hard decisions are made, there must be a purpose, even if the decisions are not popular.

33. Romney is asked what happens if Afghanistan is not ready to be left by the American military.  Romney says that we will be ready and that our troops will come home.  He admitted that what is happening in Pakistan is going to affect what is going on in that region and how we should respond to it.  He mentions Pakistan, but doesn’t have any concrete plan for what to do there.  He sais we should rebuild our relationship there and that we will have to meet certain benchmarks.

34. Obama mentioned that by 2008, America had forgotten why we were in Afghanistan.  He said that our coalition partners will be moving out responsibly.  He talked about the veterans of the wars and what we have to do to help them to get jobs and get their lives back.

35. Pakistan is a country of problems and a problem relationship with America.  Romney says that we have to support them because they have over 100 nuclear warheads.  He says that if the government there falls apart, terrorists can grab the weapons and use them at will.  He says we are going to have to work with Pakistan to keep the Taliban from rushing back on when we leave Afghanistan.  Romney says that drones are OK because we should any and all means necessary to go after threats to America.  He says we are going to have to do more than just go after bad guys.  We have to move the world away from terrorism.  Romney asks a bunch of stupid questions that he says will lead to peace in our world.

37. Obama says we have done a lot more than just go after the “bad guys.”  We also have worked on making alliances, talking with the protesters in the Middle East.  We stood on the side of the people.  There will always be elements in those countries that will hate America, but we are working to lessen their influence.

38. The program moves to China.  Obama says that terrorist networks will be our greatest threat.  China can be a threat, but it could also be a great partner if it follows the rules.  Obama talked about some of the cases won against China related to trade.  He thinks we should be making more investments in relationship to China.

39. Romney says that China does not want protectionism.  They want a stable world and economy.  They want the world to be free and open.  He says they look at us and say how strong are we and can they depend on us.  He asks these questions, putting words in the mouth of China and claims that he would be “very strong” if he were president.  He does not say how, of course, but I guess that doesn’t matter.  On day one, he is going to label them . . . ., same old, same old.  No different from what Obama says, except for the first day junk.  When asked if this would bring about a trade war, he said no, but with little to support it.

40. Obama talked about jobs and our relationship with China.  Our exports to China have increased.  We are increasing our military presence in the Pacific to remind China and other countries that we care what happens in that part of the world and that we can apply some pressure.

41. Romney is starting to stutter as he pulls out his old line about Obama criticizing him not being a policy.  What nonsense!   Again, he claims he didn’t say let the auto industry go to the bottom if that is what would happen in the free market.  He is so against government investment in companies.  He is a fool and just saying anything that comes to his mouth, again.  I know a lot of people just love that, but it is hogwash.

41. Obama tried to respond to Romney, but you can’t really get information out there when your opponent just makes up anything.  Then, Romney goes back to the old data crap that can’t be challenged.  Then Romney says he loves teachers whatever that means.

 42. Obama described the four years of digging out of the terrible policies of the past and points out that Romney wants to take America back to where we were with the same old policies.  Obama wants to invest in jobs, education, and developing energy sources, a breadth of sources.  He says he will maintain a strong but reasonable military.  We need nation building.  He mentioned that we have character and will work to keep America the greatest nation on earth.

43. Romney claims that he wants to work for peace.  He claims that Obama will take America toward where Greece is (ridiculous!)  He claims that he will make 12 million jobs, but never says how he will do that.  He again goes through that bull crap about bipartisanship.  He has no idea of what that actually means, except everybody has to do things his way.  What a load of crap.  He is talking about a torch of freedom and that he will be “that leader” and will lead in an open honest way.  Pathetic!  A liar claiming to be an honest leader.

The Message We are Sending

by Ruth A. Sheets

The election process keeps rolling on.  It seems we have been at it for years.  Oh wait, we have.  What’s the message we are sending to the world, our children, and future generations, running is more important than governing.

One of our candidates, Mitt Romney has no trouble lying on a regular basis.  Whenever he faces an audience, he says whatever he thinks that audience wants to hear.  No one really knows what he stands for and what kind of president he might be, but the election is really close.  What is the message sent forth? Lying works and if you say it loud enough and you act as though you truly believe your lies, people will believe them too and vote for you.  Mitt Romney has this one down.

Mitt Romney talked over President Obama in the first debate, showed him a lot of disrespect, even to the point of bullying.  The President was advised that if he were too strenuous in his debate style, he would be seen as “THE ANGRY BLACK MAN” AND WOULD SCARE FOLKS OFF.  Romney had no such directive or stereotype, so he could open fire, even though most of what he said was untrue.  What is the message? Bullying works and our racism is actually OK because it can get you what you want.

Mitt Romney supports denying women most of the rights they’ve earned in the past 40 years or so, and yet a large number of women are supporting him.  What is the message? Women’s needs aren’t even important to women, despite the effect of losing those rights on more than half the population.

The wealthy are buying the 2012 election with the blessing of the Supreme Court, and Americans go on as though this doesn’t matter.  They complain about the number of ads, especially the negative ones, yet they allow those ads and that money to persuade them.  What is the message? Money can buy anything and everything, even our democracy.

Conservatives claim to spend a lot of time trying to channel our founders, trying to figure out how those guys would have handled the situations we are facing today.  It is hard to imagine that our founders would have been pleased by this campaign.  Their message? Decide what kind of society you want, one ruled by the wealthy for the interest of the wealthy, or something that is more balanced and fair for the country as a whole. 

One would be hard put to see that Mitt Romney can possibly bring us to the latter. 

Women DO Care About the Economy

Women in Binders protesting in Ohio

by muon

The other day Mitt Romney said all this talk about "women in binders" was just a diversion. He said women aren't all that concerned with "women's issues." He said what they really care about is the economy.

As for women caring about the economy, I couldn't agree more. So let me explain it to you, Mr. Romney.

You're the one who uttered the words "women in binders." It was part of your response to a question about the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Now, nevermind the fact that you lied about actively appealing to women's groups to find qualified women to fill cabinet posts (the women's group contacted you, not the other way around), the issue here is women who are often discriminated against in being considered for certain jobs in our society. If a woman can't find a job, simply because she's a woman, for her, that's an economic issue.

If a woman isn't paid equally for doing the same work as a man, especially if that woman's family depends on her paycheck to make ends meet, THAT's an economic issue.

If a woman can't afford contraceptives, and therefore can't plan a family according to what is affordable in her circumstances, THAT's an economic issue.  Not just a family issue, but a major national economic issue, because the more children who are born into poverty, the more strain it puts on social programs designed to help the poor. Of course, these are programs you'd just as soon take away from those children, but that won't change the fact that, without contraceptives, the population will grow, creating a bigger economic issue in the future.

If a woman and her family have inadequate preventative healthcare, to the point where symptoms are ignored because the cost of seeing a doctor, having tests, or buying medicine is too high, THAT's an economic issue. The nation's emergency room and clinics will be overwhelmed. The costs of major medical procedures can ruin families completely.

And that's just for starters. EVERY women's issue is an economic issue. And most women I know are getting very tired of having Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan dismiss women's issues as mere diversions.

Using People

Ryan's phony photo op

by muon

Back when Jon Fox was running for reelection as a GOP congressman, I participated in a charity walk in his district. He showed up, registered to walk, and donned one of the free T-shirts. As the local paper snapped photos, Fox started walking with us. A half-block later, he got into a car and sped away. The rest of us finished the walk and collected our pledges. Oh, Fox may have given a donation, I don't know. But he didn't do the 10K with the rest of us. For him, the event was no more than a photo op.

A few days ago, Paul Ryan and his campaign pushed past volunteers to get into a soup kitchen in Ohio. He wasn't there to help out. In fact, the kitchen was already done for the day, people fed, food put away, everything washed up. But Ryan was after a photo op (one has to wonder why, since his whole budget and philosophy is based on NOT giving handouts to the less fortunate). Still, Ryan donned an apron and washed perfectly clean pots while his campaign took photos. When the administrators of the kitchen heard of the incident, they were outraged. No one from the Romney/Ryan camp had asked permission to allow campaign photos to be taken there. So the news today isn't about what a great fella Ryan is for helping out at the soup kitchen, it's about the arrogance of his campaign in using decent people for his own gain.

Mitt Romney was asked recently to stop telling a story at his rallies about meeting a Navy SEAL who later died in Libya. The family didn't want their son's name politicized (the reason I'm not naming him in this article), especially since, apparently, the SEAL hadn't liked Romney after meeting him.

I'm not saying only Republicans do this sort of thing, though it seems more blatant on their part, at least where I live. I'm much more aware these days of all the personal stories in political ads--how congressman X single-handedly helped this person or that family. The thing is, I know a talent agent, so I've learned that many of the ads are scripted and actors are hired. Or if they're real people telling true stories, there's usually something more to it. While Obamacare was being fought over in Congress, an ad ran featuring a local doctor voicing her professional opposition. I looked her up. She was a real doctor. But she was also a tea party activist with an interest in running for office herself someday. She was using the issue to further her own political career.  I've googled other people who've appeared on ads (if their names are given) and I've found the same sort of cronyism. I'm not saying there are no ads featuring sincere people who have no alternative motives, but I'm now so cynical of all of the ads, it doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm not interested in stories about how a politician has helped one person or family. I want to hear how the candidates intend to help everyone, every citizen in the country. Not just the rich ones or poor ones or white ones or minorities. Everyone. So, all you seeking office, quit with the phony photo ops and heart-rending stories that are likely more fiction than fact. Start talking issues.

This Isn't Dancing With The Stars

by muon

The early reactions from the VP debate are in and here are my observations.

Everyone's talking about looks, smiles, rolling of eyes, who interrupted who, and who lied. (For the record, both lied to some extent, but Biden's were more in the exaggeration or twisting of words category, while Ryan more often ventured into "pants on fire" territory.)

Every Romney/Ryan supporter said Biden interrupted too much. They didn't say this last week when their candidate interrupted far more. Romney basically tried to hijack the whole proceeding last week. He was obnoxious to the moderator. But everyone said he was aggressive and confident. Mr. Biden was passionate last night. Not aggressive, not obnoxious. The times he did interrupt, it was to ask Ms. Raddatz if he'd be able to respond to Ryan's misstatements. Biden was not rude. On the other end of the scale, Romney supporters were praising Ryan for being "cool." Frankly, Ryan was a lot like Obama last week. Too cool. When he gave details at all (which wasn't often), it was from his position as "The Math Guy"--ie, he made viewers' eyes glaze over.

Last night was a good debate on issues. The differences in the candidates' positions were made fairly clear. Martha Raddatz did an excellent job asking follow-up questions and keeping each man on task and schedule. I would have liked to hear a few other issues, about the Lilly Ledbetter Act, for instance, and about immigration, the environment, education, union-busting and voter suppression.

But really, I'm not sure it would have made a difference because no one's talking about issues this morning.  America seems to be treating these debates as they would Dancing With The Stars. Already having decided their favorites, people are watching the debates hoping to see the other guy fall on his ass. When it comes time to vote someone off the island, it will be because they didn't like the way the other guy smirked or laughed.

Issues will likely have little to do with this election. Apparently, even when two candidates spend 90 minutes talking about them, all people notice are outward appearances. No one listens.

Are You Serious?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Five days after the “big debate” for the 2012 Presidential campaign and Romney seems to be moving into the lead in a lot of swing states.  I keep hearing that and can’t help but say in a very loud voice “Are you serious???”

It is true  that President Obama did not have his best speaking event ever, but he did stick to the truth and told us what he stands for.  He probably should have used a few theatrics and demonstrated a lot more enthusiasm and energy, but should someone’s vote be changed by what they saw on Wednesday night?

Mr. Romney had no problem lying to the American people, but he did it with such conviction that people didn’t seem to care that what he said involved significant falsehoods being tossed out at will.  He had no trouble changing his positions on nearly every issue.  His disrespect for both the President and the debate moderator was startling. 

So what about Mitt Romney’s performance is changing minds?  I suspect it relates to the old adage, “If you say it loud enough and often enough, people will think it’s true, even if it isn’t.”  And, if you smirk while you are saying it, why that’s almost magic.  

I heard a commentator today declare that the American public is stupid.  He said it with a lot of conviction.

Is the American electorate “stupid?”  No.  But, we like people who talk tough and don’t have to think before they speak.  We tend to be drawn to bullies, as long as they are not bullying us.  We want the world to respect, even fear us, so we take the role of bully assuming that, as we have done for nearly 70 years, often in the role of bully, we will prevail.

 Despite the job improvement, the nearly doubling of the stock market, the ending of a war and drawing down of another, a health care program that enables more people to be covered than ever before, and a saving of America’s auto industry, President Obama can’t seem to get most Americans behind him.  Why is that?

Mitt Romney has very little to offer anyone.  He wants to be elected because he wants to be elected.  His lying and frequent changing of position on every issue should clearly demonstrate that, but Romney has experience being a bully from earliest childhood and it is going to be hard for President Obama to stand up to that level of experience. 

Americans really should wake up to the demands of a world that is quite different from what it was during the last century.  America does not need to be the bullying world police.  We need a leader who can work with other people, not push them around.  We need a leader who has shown he can improve people’s lives, respect people of all backgrounds.  Mr. Romney does not meet any of these criteria. 

Winning or losing a debate proves nothing about one’s ability to lead, but polls seem to show that Americans think it does.  Are you serious!!!!!

The Day After the Debate

by Ruth A. Sheets

Nearly 24 hours after the “Big Debate” last night and I am thinking of Snake Oil salesmen.  All the pundits say that Romney won the debate and I suppose if you look at points made, he did.  He talked so fast that it was hard to follow what he was saying and claiming.  That is saying a lot since I read things at least twice the speed of what most people do.

The snake oil guy misdirects, and has a patter that makes you think you heard something critically important when the claims he is making are either untrue or impossible.  One can get so caught up in the excitement of the moment that a credible response is unlikely. 

President Obama got caught in the patter last night.  How does someone, even an intelligent knowledgeable person, pick which of the multitude of claims to respond to?  It is even more difficult when the salesman changes his entire pitch.

The positions Romney stated as his own last night were not those he has held throughout the rest of the campaign.  He has changed his position on taxes and whose will be raised, how the deficit will be closed, how much or little the wealthiest among us will be asked to pay.

On health care, Romney practically claimed Obamacare while saying he would repeal it.  How can one hold both positions?  He said we need regulation, but wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, the law passed to help stop crashes like we experienced in 2008, but not all of it, just the things he doesn’t like.  Of course, one should not get specific.  Peoplemight hold you to it.

I could not see either candidate, but heard Obama being mostly straightforward and sounding serious, although he did not take many ascertive opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney.  Mr. Romney was, what I call “snarky.”  His voice sounded condescending and had a triumphant note to it.  He made me tired just listening to him.  That is what the snake oil salesman does.  He wants you to buy his useless product by making you feel that you are so ill that you need it.  The lies go with the territory.  That is an American tradition.  If one challenges the lies, one will be accused of lying and making up one’s own facts, a misdirect.  Hmmm!

Where do we go from here?  Mr. Obama must get tough.  I know what it will look like when he goes directly at Mr. Romney and challenges him on at least some of his hogwash.  Being Black, he has to be so careful that he doesn’t look like he is targeting Mr. Romney.  Mr. Romney, meanwhile, can say nearly anything and will be seen as strong and a man of character, when in reality, he’s a snake oil salesman who is only interested in his sale.

Notes on the First Debate: October 3, 2012

by Ruth A. Sheets

These are real-time notes made while listening to the first debate of the 2012 campaign.

In his opening remarks, Romney used the word “crushed” a lot when talking about what has happened to Americans under Obama.

Romney was asked if he had a specific question, then went off on his own speech and never asked a question and wasn’t called on it.

Romney makes up things as he goes along.  He changed his tax cut claims.  He will say anything that comes to his mind.  He now says he will make tax cuts to the middle class, but before this he has not said that.

He claims that Obama was lying about Romney’s tax plan.  Interesting that there is a pot calling the kettle, oh wait, is that black?

I wish that Obama would talk about making some sacrifices.  We can’t keep going on without raising some revenue from middle class folks, especially for the higher middle class folks, over 75,000 dollars or so.

Romney claims that the reason small businesses are not growing is that their taxes are too high.  That is absurd.  Most of the problem is that the banks aren’t lending.

Romney claims he has a test for what he will cut from the budget.  If he doesn’t think it is worth borrowing from China to pay for, he will cut it, including:  PBS, (he pandered to “Big Bird” and Mr. Lehrer, and a whole lot of things that help a lot of Americans).

I had heard that Romney would be snarky in a debate, and he is.  He takes more time than Obama, standing there making accusations that were, of course, well-rehearsed.

I wish Obama would mention about how employers are paying their employees less money which means less money to buy things and to pay in taxes.

Romney is complaining about Obama giving money to green industries--and had to bring up Solyndra again, one of the mere 3 companies that failed--when oil gets 4 billion off the top every year, nearly half of what the green companies get over 10 years.  Crazy!  No vision for the future.

Romney is rambling from topic to topic.  It is hard to follow what he is trying to say.

Entitlements

Obama explained his position on Social Security and Medicare and said he would make some changes in Medicare to do better payments.

Romney brought up the 716 billion in cuts even though that is not true. 

Romney talks about having a traditional Medicare and private medicare.  Who needs to have private insurance companies in the mix?  That makes no sense.  There is no evidence that giving companies, that are already making billions in profit, more money will work.

OK, we are talking about regulation now.  Romney says that “we need regulations for a free market” but, it seems that he is also saying he only wants the regulations he likes.   

Romney rattles on stating generalities about Dodd Frank, the Wall Street Regulation law with no real substance.

Health Care

Again, Romney brings up how Obamacare will raise costs for health care, but the reality is that most of the checkers say that is not true.  He keeps dragging it out in case some people will believe it.

I would like to see a time count for how much time Romney spoke compared with  how much Obama spoke.

Romney claimed that his plan worked in Mass because it was bipartisan, but he forgets that Obama could get no Republican support because they were determined to stand against him no matter what, even though the health plan was a bipartisan idea.

I love that Romney wants to repeal Obamacare, but of course, wants to keep the popular parts.

Romney claims that the government cannot bring down the cost of anything.  He just throws that out with nothing to support it.  Is it possible that people will believe that just because he says it?

Performance pay, he claims it is working somewhere but he throws out names of places with nothing to support it.

Romney claims the medical board will say what treatmeent people can have.  The board according to Obamacare can’t do that.  They are looking at best practices.

Romney says the reason he can’t give details is because he can’t act like it’s my way or the highway and he wouldn’t get anything done.  That is how he ran his business.

His idea of doing health care state by state is really stupid and wasteful.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT 

Romney says we need liberty and a strong military and religious freedom.  He lists a lot of things and puts them out as a list of things that don’t seem to be things he really believes.

He talks about people pursuing happiness.  But whose happiness?  He says that the path we are traveling is not working.  He doesn’t explain why.

I wish Obama would stop talking about “Race to the Top.”  He didn’t answer Romney’s charge that parents should be able to choose the schools for their kids even though there is no evidence that their choices are better than the traditional system.

Romney had a zinger he had to use.  “You are entitled to your own house and car, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”  What a hypocrite.  That is amazing since he has been creating his own facts throughout the whole campaign.

Romney claims we should grade our schools, saying he wants them to be more effective and efficient.

Romney brought up that he worked with a mostly democratic legislature in Mass.  but he forgets to mention that they were Democrats and willing to compromise where the Republicans in Congress have not been.

Obama talked about American grit and  talent and success and his promise to keep fighting for America.  It was a pretty good statement.

Romney’s, however was very negative, throwing out fear statements that really don’t help to improve his image.  He claims that he will put his own things in place, whatever that means.  There is nothing about Americans working together to make things happen, just a blaming of Obama and claiming all kinds of negative things that Obama will do.  Pathetic.  I think it will make his supporters feel good, though.  They like that kind of negativity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was watching the debate on Current TV and Democrats were commenting on the event.  They think Obama did a terrible job, but I don’t agree.  It might be because I couldn’t see the candidates and did not assume anything about the candidates because of their appearance, just what they said, how they said it, and the tone of their voices.  I do think Obama was too gentle with Romney, letting him get in a lot of cuts with no jump[ing in to stop the nonsense that Romney was throwing out.  We’ll see if that changes in the next debate.

Aggression Does Not Equal Win

by muon

After the presidential debate last night, all the pundits jumped on the bandwagon and said Mitt Romney was more aggressive, therefore he won.

Aggressive, mind you. Not assertive. Not confident. Not presidential. Aggressive.

And I agree. Romney was aggressive.

Bullies are aggressive. Road ragers are aggressive. Domestic abusers are aggressive.  We try to teach our kids not to go down that road, to have the self-confidence and self-esteem not to feel so threatened that attack is the only option. Since Columbine, we have organized programs against bullying. We counsel people who use aggression to get their own way in our society. Often, they get jail time.

So how can Romney's aggression be a good thing?  Do we want our president to be aggressive? Do we want someone so combative that he'll say or do anything to, in his mind, win (including telling 5 very big lies during the debate)?  Do we want someone who always has to have the last word, and an angry one at that? Would you send someone like that to enter into delicate negotiations with foreign countries?

Do we want someone that aggressive with the authority to start World War 3?

A president who won't admit he's wrong, who always needs the last word, who never apologizes for his lies and offensiveness? Who honestly doesn't seem to care for anything but how powerful his bullying makes him feel? Would that really be good for America?