Wednesday 29 August 2012

[wanabidii] How Romney Keeps Lying Through His Big White Teeth.....How About Big Elephant Head..!!!



People,

 

The Obama track records are in public domain and it is clear that President Obama has succeeded on many fronts in performance and leadership and has performed much better than those before him. His successes are worth celebrating. They are long and compelling……..follow this trend in your search to know the truth and avoid being filled with LIES. Thus: See what President Obama did in:

 

1) defeating Bin Laden

2) getting out of Iraq

3) Putting America on top as a Super-Power

4) helping to oust Qaddafi

5) restoring our reputation internationally

6) resetting our international priorities to better coincide with our long term interests

(the "pivot" to a focus on Asia and China)

7) producing meaningful healthcare reform to all

8) producing significant financial services reforms accessible to all

9) lifting the downward spiral in the economy and laying foundations Way-forward for recovery etc.,

 

Top on the agenda is President Obama's leadership success in international economic policy which must be appreciated, and it all goes along way with Foreign Policy that must be acceptable and are favorable. You cannot succeed in home politics and make a success story in the lead of being a super power with a failed foreign policy and be successful. Both must provide a balance and this is what President Obama has done. You cannot claim to be successful in business commerce (Free Trading enterprising) without cooperating with the International Governments or without laying down constitutional democratic plan how to deliberate and provide a balance for Global environmental security, managing terrorism, securing safe and secure livelihood and survival. This is what President Obama did and why he engaged provision for a healthy Nation where he first provide Welfare Reform for good and affordable healthcare, he engaged a diverse shared ideas for employment and job opportunities and creation through financial support and training extension for job creation and placements. This program fell under the Stimulus Recovery Act where The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama. President Obama Administration therefore monitors, balances and oversee the collection of Revenues from business in fees or levy etc., and from government contracts with government trading bills, loans and bonds employment and business trading expansion under a reliable fair Partnership is set in a balanced shared sacrifice. In essence these are basic requirements needed from a Responsible leadership to steer a successful Government operation in prioritizing service deliver to Public Mandate & needs. President Obama energized and boosted the Educational agenda for success in boosting student loans and encouraging science and Technology motivating girls to engage in science subjects and Technology.

 

Quote:

"To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and 'green' energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.[1] The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank)."

 

A few years ago, president Obama made a bold move for the U.S. to double it's exports over the next five years, with growth averaging over 16 percent a year and since then, progress is being made. The U.S. Export-Import Bank has broken all records in terms of financing of U.S. exports. Three trade deals got through a divided Congress-against substantial opposition from within the president's own party. The TPP process is moving forward. Trading laws are being enforced more aggressively. U.S. pressure on China regarding its currency and trading policies for fair shared mutual consideration for common good of all is beginning to have an effect both locally and abroad. U.S. is becoming actively involved globally. In European and the G8, debt discussions has been forceful moved and played in a meaningful way negotiating against EU headwinds and the EuroZone Economic crisis. The U.S. has actively begun a program to attract foreign Partnership investment in the U.S., a long-overlooked area of great importance in the Global Emerging Markets. Exports are contributing heavily to recent growth. The president's Export Initiative is making impact beyond contrasts from Republican obstruction hurdles or those who held diverse reasons against President Obama's hope mission agenda for CHANGE.

 

President Obama's policy with regard to resetting defense priorities is equally bearing fruits. The Panetta plan for cutting spending was unveiled and is a good plan. More importantly, the rewards are now seen in the context of the current political environment. Imagine, making tough choices is what a successful leader must do. It can be seen that, in the process of the President running for re-election, he is willing to make argument over a controversial case for substantial defense spending cuts ($450 billion over a decade) even though he knows it will bring him an onslaught of criticism and constant attacks from his opponents on defense. It is because he understands what is best for the Nation and its people. There is nothing soft about being willing to take such heat in order to do what is right for the country. As the president notes, even with these cuts we will still be spending vastly more than every major military power in the world combined.

 

It is through the GOVERNMENT that made President Obama success story become real. It is therefore true that the Government CREATS JOBS.......If not, with all the riches of big money in their successful businesses why are they scrumbling to own and control the Government????????

But when people suggest that the president has failed, is weak or not a leader; they are wrong. They are opportunists who have no facts and cannot prove their case. President Obama is the most truthful and a fair leader ever seen in the whole world. Those his critics are out of touch and base their lofty cases on pure lies with no basis….……..President Obama mean well, is passionate and cares for America and the American people without discrimination.

 

In comparison, Mitt Romney of the Republican nominee is a flip flopper, cannot be trusted because of questionable loose-end tax report he has refused to release; leaving people to wonder what he could be hiding from his tax release. Mitt Romney has not been able to give specifics of his Blue Print Plan how he wish to move America forward with stipulated Foreign Policy. Mitt Romney has frequently dodged journalists questions and people are wondering what he is afraid of and why he is not clear and open.

 

We thought Chris Christie was going to lay down clear sale of Mitt Romney on the stage, it was obvious the continued Republican platform did not present ideas of "Shared Sacrifice" and "truth", the driving key themes Christie's speech was to present on the future WAYFORWARD of America. Even Ann Romney's speech did not appeal to present expectation on what Mitt Romney was going to do if he become the next President. There were no laid down vision of specifics on how they intend to do the economic Development and growth; they did not say how they spent the Stimulus Fund packages to get their constituents out of the short recess.

 

Within four (4) years, President Obama has accomplished a lot; fixing and stabilizing the economic crisis. He made good ties with the International Governments to secure lasting and sustainable Partnership relations. Education and affordable Healthcare is beginning to impact many lives. Giving out stimulus packages helped the country to float instead of sinking during the recession. Killing Osama Bin Laden has made the world more safer from terrorists. President Obama has put the country on the path to recovery from economic collapse from where he took leadership. The list is endless.

 

The few rich Republicans don't want to face reality, they are dodging all these because, the truth is; they just want to hijack and claim that the laid down Stimulus package and the Recovery Plan Act success story of President Obama was their vision; so they will say it was not President Obama but THEM who made it………

 

The best thing to do for America, the people of America and the world is that Romney and team should realize that they cannot do a better job than that of President Obama. But because of President Obama's good work and commitment to America and without jelousy, they should join to support President Obama for the re-election. The best they should do is to join President Obama for the second term and prepare to take over after President Obama's second term is over.

 

For what they plan to do is to bulldoze and take leadership in a crafty crooked way using LIES and because of the power of money from the rich supporters they have e.g. like what they are doing in spoiling for racial overtone votes. They continue to magnify their lies. This is why their lie will never stop. People must be watchful that everything said has silver lining of much bigger lies to drive their message home. Even under the Isack storm, their lie linger on as big as the size of the elephant's head and people must begin to worry that voter discrepancy is therefore looming big………

 

Yes, we must stand for the TRUTH and demand for facts in "Truth Checker" people……..It is the only way America will stay and remain the most powerful nation in the world......!!!



 

Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com

 

 

Mitt Romney's BIG LIES on Medicare and Welfare Reform
Published on Aug 23, 2012 by politicalarticles

No description available.

 
 
 
Mitt Romney at Risk of Being Dropped From Washington State Ballot
Published on Aug 23, 2012 by politicalarticles

No description available.

 
 
 
Lying To Seniors: Republicans Try New Twist on Old Medicare LIE
Published on Aug 23, 2012 by politicalarticles

No description available.

 
 
 
Hypocrite Ryan Overlooks Own $20Mil Stimulus Request While Opposing Stimulus (1/2)
Published on Aug 22, 2012 by politicalarticles

The Only 'Big Idea' Coming Out of the Romney-Ryan Campaign Is the BIG LIE: http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-only-big-idea-coming-out...

Be mindful of Paul Ryan, this guy is cunning and opportunist and loves showmanship with very self-serving views. Politicians like this sort is problem in all over the world. In fact most of the politicians are like this. Another one to watch out Eric Canter another hypocrite smooth self serving politician.
Ryan is not just a hypocrite, he's a bold-faced liar.
Hypocrite Ryan Overlooks Own $20Mil Stimulus Request While Opposing Stimulus (2/2)
Published on Aug 22, 2012 by politicalarticles

The Only 'Big Idea' Coming Out of the Romney-Ryan Campaign Is the BIG LIE: http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-only-big-idea-coming-out...

 
 
 
 
Do You Really Know Hypocrite Paul Ryan? (2/3)
Published on Aug 22, 2012 by politicalarticles

The Only 'Big Idea' Coming Out of the Romney-Ryan Campaign Is the BIG LIE: http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-only-big-idea-coming-out...

 
 
 
 
Chris Hayes, Is Paul Ryan a hypocrite Part 1
Published on Aug 19, 2012 by Dave Tice

No description available.

 
 
 
Chris Hayes, Is Paul Ryan a hypocrite Part 2
Published on Aug 19, 2012 by Dave Tice

No description available.

 
 
 
Mitt Romney's Big LIES About Chamber of Commerce & Health Care (1/2)
Published on Jul 2, 2012 by politicalarticles

Healthcare Terrorism: Defeated, Desperate & Despicable Republicans Hang on To Dear 'TAX': http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2012/07/02/healthcare-terrorism-defeate...

 
 
 
Mitt Romney's Big LIES About Chamber of Commerce & Health Care (2/2)
MITT ROMNEY IS A LIER AND A CHEAT! OBAMA 2012!
2012 Election RIGGED - This is going Viral
Uploaded by Freedom3777 on Feb 18, 2012

Evidence/Proof - 2012 Election Rigged Vote Fraud. Primary/Caucus/Maine. Doug Wead, Ben Swann, Reality Check, Rachel Maddow, Judge Napolitano.
http://america-hijacked.com/
Who owns the 12 Central Banks?:

 
 
 
Mitt Romney: I dont know what the Constitution says! Ask Ron Paul
Uploaded by djgabrielpresents on Jan 8, 2012

New Hampshire GOP primary debate (Transcript)
ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can't imagine a state banning contraception. I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: ... or a -- or a legislature of a state -- I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking -- given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so, you're asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.
(LAUGHTER)

 
 
 
Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney - How the Hell is Romney Winning?
Published on Mar 4, 2012 by pmpowell001

Compilation of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney highlights and possible voter fraud.
***same video with music toned way down posted in my videos by request***

 
 
 
Romney fielding questions about Bain
Published on Jul 16, 2012 by PresidentObama3

Romney fielding questions about Bain

 
 
 
 
 
How Romney Keeps Lying Through His Big White Teeth
Posted: 08/28/2012 7:50 pm
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," says Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.
A half dozen fact-checking organizations and websites have refuted Romney's claims that Obama removed the work requirement from the welfare law and will cut Medicare benefits by $216 billion.
Last Sunday's New York Times even reported on its front page that Romney has been "falsely charging" President Obama with removing the work requirement. Those are strong words from the venerable Times. Yet Romney is still making the false charge. Ads containing it continue to be aired.
Presumably the Romney campaign continues its false claims because they're effective. But this raises a more basic question: How can they remain effective when they've been so overwhelmingly discredited by the media?
The answer is the Republican Party has developed three means of bypassing the mainstream media and its fact-checkers.
The first is by repeating big lies so often in TV spots -- financed by a mountain of campaign money -- that the public can no longer recall (if it ever knew) that the mainstream media and its fact-checkers have found them to be lies.
The second is by discrediting the mainstream media -- asserting it's run by "liberal elites" that can't be trusted to tell the truth. "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," Newt Gingrich charged at a Republican debate last January, in what's become a standard GOP attack line.
The third is by using its own misinformation outlets -- led by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and his yell-radio imitators, book publisher Regnery, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, along with a right-wing blogosphere -- to spread the lies, or at least spread doubt about what's true.
Together, these three mechanisms are creating a parallel Republican universe of Orwellian dimension -- where anything can be asserted, where pollsters and political advisers are free to create whatever concoction of lies will help elect their candidate, and where "fact-checkers" are as irrelevant and intrusive as is the truth.
Democracy cannot thrive in such a place. To the contrary, history teaches that this is where demagogues take root.
The Romney campaign has decided it won't be dictated by fact-checkers. But a society without trusted arbiters of what is true and what is false is vulnerable to every lie imaginable.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

David Letterman presents 'Ann and Mitt Romney Lies'

By David Ferguson
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:48 EDT
Letterman presents Romney lies
Monday night on "The Late Show with David Letterman," host David Letterman premiered a new segment called "Ann and Mitt Romney Lies."
"Ann," he said, "The lovely Ann Romney, married to, uh…MITCH Romney."
Letterman then rolled a clip of a Fox News interview with presumptive Republican nominee Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and his wife Ann in which the couple talk about how much they love going to the grocery store and doing their own chores, and that Mitt even likes to iron his own shirts — that he bought at Costco. After each assertion of their alleged humble, 'just folks'-iness, the word "LIE" flashed across the screen, accompanied by a game show buzzer.
It is worth noting that adherents of the Mormon faith highly value the work ethic as a tenet of godly living. While we appreciate the joke, it could be said that Letterman is misapprehending a part of the Romneys' belief system.
From the website of the Church of Latter Day Saints: "Mormons believe in work and in teaching our children to work. A child who learns to work will have a better chance of success in the future, independence, a responsible nature, self-reliance, confidence, and a greater appreciation for the blessings we have and how much it takes to supply needs and wants."
Watch the clip, embedded via Mediaite, below:

Does having an African American President really make a difference? And if so, what is the difference?

Click here to read interviews with Zhana or listen to audio interviews with Zhana.

President Obama is one of the most important African American successful role models in history.

The President made history again by being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize after only 10 months in office.

Of course, for African American people, this success has particular significance.

What can African American people learn from his success?

President Obama Breaks Ground for New Black History Museum
A new national museum telling the history of black life, art, and culture will soon begin taking shape as the 19th museum in the Smithsonian Institution to explore stories that have sometimes been left out on the National Mall.

President Barack Obama and former first lady Laura Bush celebrated the start of construction for the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Brian Keane

GET UPDATES FROM Brian Keane

Obama's Solar Story Shows Success, Not Failure

Posted: 01/19/12 05:05 PM ET
As the election season shifts into high gear, we're bracing ourselves for more stories about Solyndra and other so-called "scandals" of the Obama administration.
But let's not kid ourselves -- Solyndra is a sideshow to the real, incredibly exciting story of solar power over the course of this administration.
Here's the real news: The price of solar decreased by 50 percent during 2011! 50 percent! That's a game-changing number that has resulted in a jump in installations throughout the U.S. and Europe, according to a recent Bloomberg report. Indeed, here in the U.S., new spending on solar energy jumped more than 30 percent to $55.9 billion in 2011, surpassing the 1 percent gain in China to $47.4 billion.
These are astounding numbers and show real movement and vindication for President Obama's solar policies. Bring costs down -- and people will buy it.
But much like the struggling economy, while the numbers may reflect an encouraging trend, our work is far from done. Now, with solar making economic sense, we need more than ever to get out into the communities and convey the real value of solar power to the American consumer. Sure, it's good for the environment -- but that's only one of its many values to the American consumer. Solar also happens to be affordable, reliable, good for our national security, and good as a hedge against rising energy costs over time. Plus, it adds value to your home. And on top of that, like your third computer -- the iPod -- it's a cool gadget.
This type of excitement about solar is obvious in my organization's Arizona Solar Challenge campaign. In 2011, we hosted more than 100 community solar events that reached more than 11,000 potential customers -- and ultimately saw over 4,000 residential installations of solar. The City of Yuma alone doubled in just one year the amount of solar power installed over the previous seven years!
Now, we're bringing this solar challenge to New England, giving the original colonies a chance to match what Arizona's Tea Partiers are already doing. Proving, as an aside, that this isn't a Red State versus Blue State issue. Solar simply makes sense -- good economic sense.
Reading the papers and the blogs, one would think the only movement in solar power was Solyndra's movement to bankruptcy. But these community solar campaigns are working -- and that's telling evidence that the death of clean energy has been greatly exaggerated.
Let's be honest: Solar prices were largely responsible for Solyndra's bankruptcy. That's an economy reality that even Mitt Romney can and should be touting. Consolidation in the marketplace was a good thing while he was at Bain. So too in the solar industry. It's getting stronger, less expensive -- and cooler to have.
The solar success story is a huge one for this administration. And it's time to tell the story truthfully.
Brian Keane is the President of SmartPower, a non-profit marketing organization funded by private foundations to help build the clean energy marketplace by helping the American public become smarter about their energy use.

Green jobs success eludes President Obama

President Obama and Vice President Biden walk among solar panels. | AP Photo
Obama pledged in 2008 to create 5 million green collar workers within a decade. | AP Photo Close
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 6/12/11 11:09 PM EDT
President Barack Obama heads to an energy plant in North Carolina on Monday to talk once again about the job-creating power of a green economy.
The catch? Nearly three years into Obama's presidency, the White House can't point to much solid evidence that significant numbers of Americans are scoring the green jobs the president has been touting.
Continue Reading

Latest on POLITICO

POLITICO 44

Monthly Labor Department employment reports say nothing about the new clean energy workforce, while an effort to document how many Americans actually make a living in the "green collar" field may not be done by November 2012.

Obama's Council of Economic Advisers suggests 225,000 clean energy jobs were either created or preserved through the third quarter of 2010 thanks to more than $80 billion in the economic stimulus package. But those are estimates at best.
White House officials say asking about the connection between the 9.1 percent unemployment rate and the administration's concerted green jobs campaign is the wrong question.
A better benchmark, they say, is the exponential growth in clean technology industries, from the new car battery manufacturers that have sprung up across the Midwest to renewable energy plants, including the world's largest solar facility that's slated to break ground Friday in the California desert.
The White House figures 825,000 Americans should be building electric car batteries, retrofitting homes or doing other green collar work by the end of 2012. But that too is an extrapolation.
"It's certainly a good thing if those numbers are believable," said Jerry Webman, chief economist at the Oppenheimer Funds. "But they're not a large enough number for the nation or Obama's job creation problem."
Obama's team also touts public investments it hopes will prompt private spending and lower costs for the clean energy industries of tomorrow. And all that may take a little time.
"You know, it's just like if you had a bad illness, if you got hit by a truck, it's going to take a while for you to mend," Obama said earlier this month during a visit to a Chrysler auto plant in Toledo, Ohio. "And that's what's happened to our economy. It's taking a while to mend."
While Obama may in fact end up creating millions of green jobs, it may be too late to save his.
Polls show his GOP rivals have some of their best traction because of Obama's handling of the economy. A Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin administration almost certainly wouldn't give green jobs the same emphasis, if any, especially if they got elected with allies in more traditional brown collar fields like oil and gas.
Top Republicans say they are open to creating green jobs as part of an "all of the above" energy strategy. Still, they aren't jumping to put on green collars.
"I think we ought to do what we can, but it's got to be based on productivity and profit and not just because we're doing a nice thing," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"There were a lot of promises," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "You'll remember when the stimulus dollars were coming out, the promises that we were going to see all these greens jobs? Well, we're just not seeing them.
"Is it premature?" added Murkowski, the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "I don't know. I look at numbers and pay attention to that."
Green job advocates have been making their pitch for more than a decade, offering the concept as a retort to the familiar industry warnings that environmental rules are economic killers.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56759.html#ixzz253POOgPV

The New New Deal

President Obama's stimulus has been an astonishing, and unrecognized, success, argues Michael Grunwald.

Michael Grunwald
Photograph by David Whitman
Michael Grunwald, a Time magazine correspondent, this week publishes The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, a gripping account of President Obama's stimulus bill. Grunwald writes that the stimulus has transformed America—and American politics—in ways that we have failed to recognize. I interviewed him by email about the book.
Slate: What possessed you to write this book?
Grunwald: I fled Washington for the public policy paradise of South Beach while writing my last book, about the Everglades and Florida, so in 2010 I was only vaguely aware of the Beltway consensus that President Obama's stimulus was an $800 billion joke. But because I write a lot about the environment, I was very aware that the stimulus included about $90 billion for clean energy, which was astonishing, because the feds were only spending a few billion dollars a year before. The stimulus was pouring unprecedented funding into wind, solar, and other renewables; energy efficiency in every form; advanced biofuels; electric vehicles; a smarter grid; cleaner coal; and factories to make all that green stuff in the U.S.
Advertisement
It was clearly a huge deal. And it got me curious about what else was in the stimulus. I remember doing some dogged investigative reporting—OK, a Google search—and learning that the stimulus also launched Race to the Top, which was a real a-ha moment. I knew Race to the Top was a huge deal in the education reform world, but I had no idea it was a stimulus program. It quickly became obvious that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the formal name of the stimulus) was also a huge deal for health care, transportation, scientific research, and the safety net as well as the flailing economy. It was about Reinvestment as well as Recovery, and it was hidden in plain view.
So I decided to do a piece for Time about this untold story. But my editors thought I was nuts. The stimulus was old news. Unemployment was 9 percent; what else was there to say? I actually flew up to New York to make my case. I told my bosses I felt like a reporter in 1938, trying to convince them to do a story on this initiative called "The New Deal." They looked at me like I was that blogger in The Newsroom pitching his story on Bigfoot. To their credit, though, they eventually let me write an article about how the stimulus was changing America, which led to the book.
In what ways has the stimulus been like and unlike Roosevelt's New Deal?
The stimulus isn't the New Deal. But they were both massive exercises in government activism in response to epic economic collapses. And they were both about change. The stimulus was the purest distillation of what Obama meant by "Change we can believe in." And it's the essence of Obama-ism—not only the policies, which came straight from his campaign agenda, but his approach to getting them into law, which was more pragmatic and political and messy than his hopey-changey rhetoric had led people to believe. So there was plenty of New, and plenty of Deal.
The Obama team thought a lot about the New Deal while they were putting the stimulus together, but times have changed since the New Deal. The Hoover Dam put 5,000 Americans to work with shovels. A comparable project today would only require a few hundred workers with heavy equipment. Christy Romer, the Depression scholar who led Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, kept reminding colleagues that the Roosevelt administration hired 4 million Americans in the winter of 1934. At one point she started calling Cabinet departments to see how many employees they could hire with unlimited funds: They'd say oh, a lot, maybe 20,000! So the stimulus didn't create giant new alphabet agencies like the WPA or CCC. It only created one new agency, a tiny incubator for cutting-edge energy research called ARPA-E.
People forget that the CCC herded unemployed urban youths into militarized rural work camps—often known as "concentration camps," before that phrase became uncool—for less than a dollar a day. That kind of thing wouldn't fly today. The New Deal basically created Big Government, but it's still here. There was no need to re-create Big Government, and no political desire to expand Big Government.
So the stimulus didn't establish new entitlements like Social Security or deposit insurance, or new federal responsibilities like securities regulation or labor relations, or new workfare programs for the creative class like the Federal Art Project, Federal Music Project, or Federal Writers Project. The New Deal was a barrage of contradictory initiatives enacted and adjusted over several years. The stimulus was one piece of legislation cobbled together and squeezed through Congress during Obama's first month in office. The New Deal was a journey, an era, an aura. The Recovery Act was just a bill on Capitol Hill.
But it was a really big bill, 50 percent bigger than the entire New Deal in constant dollars. It included some New Deal-ish programs, like a $7 billion initiative to bring broadband to underserved areas, a modern version of FDR's rural electrification. It included another $7 billion in incentives for states to modernize and expand the New Deal-era unemployment insurance system, which was created for a workforce of male breadwinners. Its aid to victims of the Great Recession lifted at least 7 million people out of poverty and made 32 million poor people less poor. It built power lines and sewage plants and fire stations, just like the New Deal. It refurbished a lot of New Deal parks and train stations and libraries. And Republicans have trashed the stimulus as a radical exercise in socialism, just as some Republicans—but not all Republicans—trashed the New Deal.
The most significant difference is that the New Deal was wildly popular, while the stimulus has been a political bust. There are many reasons for this, but the most important is that FDR launched the New Deal after the U.S. had suffered through more than two years of depression under Hoover, while Obama launched the stimulus when the economy was nowhere near rock bottom. Everyone knew about the financial earthquake, but the economic tsunami hadn't yet hit the shore.
The New Deal produced tangible, monumental physical achievements—dams, trails, works of art, buildings. The stimulus produced none of that. There were no new bridges—instead they repaved old ones. Why? Why didn't the Obama administration look for physical structures to build and celebrate?
I wouldn't say "none of that." The stimulus is producing the world's largest wind farm, a half dozen of the world's largest solar arrays, and America's first refineries for advanced biofuels. It's creating a battery-manufacturing industry for electric vehicles almost entirely from scratch. It financed net-zero border stations and visitors centers, an eco-friendly new Coast Guard headquarters, a one-of-a-kind "advanced synchrotron light source." It jump-started three long-awaited mega-projects in Manhattan alone—the Moynihan Station, the Second Avenue Subway, and the Long Island Railroad connection to the East Side—and it would have jump-started that multibillion-dollar rail tunnel to New Jersey as well if Governor Chris Christie hadn't killed the project.
It didn't build new dams, because we don't need new dams, but it did finance the largest dam-removal project in U.S. history to restore salmon flows on the Elwha River. It even distributed $50 million to artists.
Advertisement
But I take your point. Most of the money in the stimulus went to unsexy stuff designed to prevent a depression and ease the pain of the recession: aid to help states avoid drastic cuts in public services and public employees; unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance for victims of the downturn; and tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers. And the money that did flow into public works went more toward fixing stuff that needed fixing—aging pipes, dilapidated train stations, my beloved Everglades—than building new stuff. In its first year, the stimulus financed 22,000 miles of road improvements, and only 230 miles of new roads. There were good reasons for that. Repairs tend to be more shovel-ready than new projects, so they pump money into the economy faster. They also pass the do-no-harm test. (New sprawl roads make all kind of problems worse.) And they are fiscally responsible. Repairing roads reduces maintenance backlogs and future deficits; building roads add to maintenance backlogs and future deficits.
Obama and his team did try to push a few big physical legacy projects. During his transition, he called for a massive nationwide effort to rebuild and retrofit public schools. But Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine hated it, and Obama needed her vote to get the stimulus through the Senate, so it got deleted. Obama also wanted to build a smart grid, with digital meters for all Americans (the smart part) and a new national network of high-voltage wires (the grid part). His aides explained that couldn't happen quickly and didn't even make sense as a federal project. Instead, the stimulus included about $11 billion of seed money for the smart grid, which has launched a new era for the utility sector but hasn't really penetrated the national psyche. Finally, the White House slipped $8 billion into the stimulus for high-speed rail, the largest new transportation initiative since the interstates. But Florida's Republican governor, Rick Scott, killed a bullet train from Tampa to Orlando that was supposed to be the showcase project, and the only other bullet train, connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours, is still decades away from completion. The shovel-readier projects—like improvements that will slice an hour off the Amtrak train from Chicago to St. Louis—won't produce the oohs and aahs of bullet trains. They're really higher-speed rail—worthy, but not iconic.
Your subtitle is: "The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era." Why hidden? What are the great hidden accomplishments?
There are two reasons this story has been hidden, one understandable, one less so. First, the stimulus was supposed to create jobs at a time when jobs were vanishing at a terrifying rate. Nonpartisan economists agree that it helped stop the free fall; job losses peaked the month before it passed, and the economy dramatically improved once it kicked into gear. But even after the dramatic improvements, the unemployment rate was still sky-high and rising; an economy can do a lot better than losing 800,000 jobs a month without doing well. Ultimately, the stimulus was a 2.5 million-job solution to an 8 million-job problem.
And the Obama transition team put out a tragically dumb forecast suggesting it would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. In fairness, the situation was deteriorating far faster than people realized; the government had announced a growth rate of -4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, which is hideous, but that was later revised to -9 percent, which is way beyond hideous. Unemployment actually topped 8 percent the month the stimulus passed, which obviously wasn't the fault of the stimulus. Recoveries after financial cataclysms are always ugly. But when you spend $800 billion on an economic recovery package, and the recovery stinks, people don't tend to look past that.
That said, the national media should have tried to look past that, but it didn't, because the national media sucks at covering public policy. The stimulus included $27 billion to computerize our pen-and-paper health care system, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions, and fatalities caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. It doubled our renewable power generation; it increased solar installations over 600 percent; it essentially launched our transition to a low-carbon economy. It provided a new model for government spending—with unprecedented transparency, unprecedented scrutiny, and unprecedented competition for the cash. Experts predicted that as much as 5 percent of it would be lost to fraud, but so far, investigators have documented less than $10 million in losses, about 0.001 percent. Despite all the controversy over the lack of shovel-ready projects, the Obama administration has met every spending deadline, and it's kept costs so far under budget that it's been able to finance over 3,000 additional projects with the savings. But the media coverage of the stimulus was almost exclusively gotcha stuff, usually without a real gotcha. And when the media did notice long-term investments in the stimulus, like Race to the Top or clean-energy research, it rarely mentioned the stimulus connection.
Except, of course, when it was noticing Solyndra. After a year of screaming headlines about crony capitalism and shady deals, even Republican investigators have admitted there's no evidence of any political interference or other wrongdoing. A slew of independent reviews—including one led by John McCain's finance chairman—have concluded that the clean-energy loan program is working well. Everyone knew that some of its loans would go bad. But the Solyndra scandal—which isn't even a scandal—is probably the best-known product of the stimulus.
The complaint from the left about the stimulus has long been: It was too small. According to your reporting, that's an unrealistic claim. Why?
Well, it was too small. More aid to states would have prevented more layoffs of public employees. More infrastructure projects would have put more unemployed laborers to work. More tax cuts would have put more money into the hands of consumers. What my reporting shows is that the disillusionment addicts of the left are wrong to blame President Obama for the size of the stimulus.
People forget that after Lehman Bros. collapsed in September 2008, Democrats couldn't even get 60 votes in the Senate for a $50 billion stimulus; in fact, two Democrats voted against it. The $800 billion stimulus was over four times larger than Obama's campaign proposal in October 2008. It was over twice as large as the package that 387 liberal economists urged Congress to pass in late November. It's only in retrospect that $800 billion seems wimpy. And Obama couldn't have gotten a dime more through the Senate. The three moderate Republicans who voted yes—Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter—all insisted they wouldn't support anything over $800 billion. So did at least a half-dozen centrist Democrats, like Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota wanted a bigger stimulus, but he was in the room during the negotiations, and he told me: There was absolutely no way to make that happen.
Some progressives admit that Obama couldn't have gotten more stimulus during his first month in office but complain that he never pushed for more stimulus after the Recovery Act passed. That's just wrong. He never stopped pushing behind the scenes and ended up getting another $700 billion worth in 2009 and 2010, even though Republicans were trying to obstruct him at every turn. They were even marching in lockstep against unemployment benefits and small-business tax cuts that they had always supported in the past. So Obama did well to get what he got.
This is an adulatory story about the Obama administration, depicting a subtle, engaged, brilliant president working for the long-term good of the nation, surrounded by brilliant, self-sacrificing scientists and thinkers who are looking for sweeping change, and opposed by venal, selfish, viciously partisan Republicans willing to sacrifice the health of the nation for political gain. That's a portrait that will surely delight Democrats and irritate Republicans. Why should the average reader trust it? Why shouldn't they see this as partisan hackwork in the service of the Obama re-election campaign?
Wow! Maybe you're so accustomed to reading breathless tell-alls about the fumbling, bumbling hacks in the White House—by right-wingers, left-wingers, and even Obama supporters who basically approve of his agenda but want to show how independent and tough-minded they are—that my story sounds adulatory. The guy doesn't walk on water. I write about his missteps and miscalculations as well as his achievements, and I reveal a lot of internal dissension on his team.
That said, I realize The New New Deal tells a story that, for the most part, Obama lovers are going to like and Obama haters on the left and the right are going to hate. I'd say that readers shouldn't see this as partisan hackwork because I'm not a partisan hack. I've been a reporter for 20 years, and my reporting is accurate. In case people are curious, I'm a registered independent, socially liberal, otherwise pretty unpredictable. I voted for Obama in 2008, but I voted for Charlie Crist for governor over a generic Democrat in 2006, back when he was a rising Republican star. I do tend to be a contrarian. I think I was the first non-oil-stooge to write that the BP spill was not that awful an ecological disaster. But I was just following my reporting; I know a lot of scientists in Louisiana, and I got to see a lot of persuasive data. I feel the same way about the stimulus; the data tell a very different story than the prevailing narrative.
Advertisement
I don't think my book portrays the Republicans as "vicious," but I do show—thanks to a lot of in-depth interviews with GOP sources—how they plotted to obstruct Obama before he even took office. I show how the stimulus was chock full of stuff they claimed to support until Jan. 20, 2009—not just things like health IT and the smart grid and energy efficiency and scientific research, but the very idea of Keynesian stimulus. Every presidential candidate in 2008 proposed a stimulus package, and Mitt Romney's was the largest. So I do spend a fair amount of time chronicling Republican stimulus hypocrisies. (Readers might enjoy the backstory of Sen. Judd Gregg's short-lived nomination to be Obama's commerce secretary.) In general, I'd have to say my reporting backs up the Norm Ornstein-Thomas Mann thesis that the Republicans have gone off the policy deep end—denying global warming, denying Keynesian economics (except when it comes to business tax cuts and defense spending!), trashing Obama's government takeover of health care and also his Medicare cuts, drumming stimulus supporters like Crist and Specter out of the party. Then again, one Republican who comes off pretty well is Mark Sanford, a rare voice of honest small-government conservatism in the party. (He also says some pretty surprising things about his trip down the Appalachian Trail.)
I think there ought to be a great debate about the stimulus and its interventions in various sectors of the economy. But we haven't had that debate. We've debated a bizarro-world stimulus that does not exist. And I think that's true about Obama, too. I don't think he comes across as "brilliant." I think he comes across as a pragmatic left-of-center technocrat who wasn't interested in pursuing lost causes, but basically tried to do what he said he would do during the campaign. He wasn't a policy entrepreneur with new policy ideas, but he did his best to get 60 votes for old policy ideas that made sense, and then pushed his administration to put them into action as cleanly and competently as possible. And I did a lot of reporting in the bowels of the bureaucracy and around the country to show how change has been playing out.
I tried to tell the story as fairly and honestly as I could. But I didn't try to be balanced for the sake of balance. When politicians were full of shit, I tried to point that out.
Can you explain why so many local Republican officials and organizations traditionally aligned with the GOP (like the Chamber of Commerce) supported the stimulus, while the national party was united against it?
The top priority for many local Republican politicians and Republican-leaning business organizations was avoiding a depression. They saw that the Obama stimulus wasn't radical leftism; it was textbook countercyclical stimulus. Republicans had called for $300 billion worth of tax cuts, and that's exactly what it had. Republican governors like Crist, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Jodi Rell of Connecticut, Jim Douglas of Vermont, and Jon Hunstman of Utah understood that its aid to states—over $160 billion worth—would prevent massive cutbacks of public services and massive layoffs of public employees. As the lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce told me: When you sit where I sit, you don't want to see an epic collapse of aggregate demand. Depressions are bad for business. I also tell a fun story of a Democratic aide screaming and cursing at some business lobbyists, warning that they'd get nothing from the Democratic Congress if they couldn't support an economic recovery bill during an economic emergency.
But the top priority for Washington Republicans was denying Obama bipartisan victories, so that they could come back from political oblivion. There's a lot of fun fly-on-the-wall stuff in the book about meetings where Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and other GOP leaders made this case—and on-the-record quotes from former GOP congressmen like Mike Castle, George Voinovich, and Specter complaining about it. McConnell often reminded his caucus about the 1984 election. Everyone remembers it as the 49-state Reagan landslide, Morning in America; people forget that only one Republican challenger ousted a Democratic incumbent that year. (It was McConnell, so he remembers.) His point was that there was nothing to be gained by going along with Obama. If the recovery plan worked and the economy boomed, Republicans would get re-elected even if they had voted against Obama. But if the economy was still struggling in 2010, Republicans could make a comeback if they stuck together.
Did the Republican opposition ruin Keynesian stimulus for the indefinite future?
I doubt it. The opposition is mostly opportunistic. One of the Republican alternatives to the stimulus in the House was a $715 billion plan that included far more highway construction than Obama's. Almost the entire GOP conference supported it. And Republicans still defend business tax cuts and defense spending in Keynesian terms, even though they're generally mediocre as Keynesian stimulus. I suspect that if Mitt Romney wins the election, the Republican opposition to fiscal stimulus will vanish, along with their rhetorical commitment to reining in budget deficits.
Why was the GOP's message of opposition so much more effective than the administration's message of spending? Was Obama's failure fundamentally a communications failure, as Ed Rendell told you?
I don't claim to be an expert in political strategy and messaging. I tried to tell the story and let readers decide for themselves where the politics went wrong. But I'll make a few observations. First, the Obama team's Recovery Act message was highly nuanced. It was short-term jobs along with long-term investments. It was tax cuts along with spending. It was the biggest domestic spending bill in history, but it was also just a first step toward normalcy. The economy needed fiscal stimulus in the short term but fiscal responsibility in the long term.
The Republican message was much simpler: No.
Advertisement
Republicans were also maniacally disciplined about repeating that message. During the stimulus debate, Democrats used most of their airtime quibbling with Obama's specifics, which helped confirm the GOP message that the stimulus was a porky big-government mess. And once it passed, Obama and the Democrats moved on to other business, like health care, financial reform, and so on. The Republicans never moved on. Their message—big spending, big government, big mess—never changed.
There's a lot of reporting about messaging in this book. It was a topic of hot debate inside the White House, on the Hill, and everywhere else. But I will say that I think people tend to overstate its importance. I'm not sure what kind of message would have worked when unemployment was hovering around double digits. I tell a story about how Obama set up White House interviews with all the major anchors to sell the stimulus—a chance to tell his story to the American people through Katie Couric and Anderson Cooper!—but all the questions were about Tom Daschle withdrawing his Cabinet nomination that morning because of unpaid taxes. I suppose you could make the case that was a turning point, but I really don't think so. And I'm skeptical of Rendell's idea that the Democratic Party's Great Communicator suddenly became a lousy communicator once he took office. I think Obama and his team made more than their share of communications mistakes—I especially think he should have focused his message more on long-term transformation than short-term economic revival, and some of his aides agree with me—but I don't see how better communications would have changed the story of 2010.
When will Americans be able to look out and recognize measurable, wonderful gains from the stimulus?
Well, we're already able. For example, 95 percent of us received Making Work Pay tax cuts of up to $800 a year for a family. But they were dribbled out through reduced withholding, because behavioral economics suggests that we're less likely to spend money when it arrives in a big chunk, so fewer than 10 percent of us noticed them. The backstory of that decision will make Obama supporters cringe.
Similarly, anyone who received expanded unemployment benefits or food stamps or Cobra subsidies or Pell Grants in 2009 or 2010 benefited from the stimulus. The stimulus saved more than 300,000 education jobs, and preserved over $100 billion worth of health services for the poor. We're already using more clean energy and less energy overall because of the stimulus; the electric vehicle industry is here because of the stimulus; the domestically manufactured content of U.S. wind turbines has increased from 20 percent to 60 percent because of the stimulus. There are over 100,000 stimulus projects that have upgraded our parks, subways, hospitals, food pantries, and so forth. On our last vacation my family visited Ketchikan, Alaska, where the stimulus upgraded the nature center. It was a very nice nature center.
Also: The stimulus helped prevent a depression, and as Romer says in the book, depressions really, really suck. They create horrible human suffering, and horrible deficits, too. The economy is quite lousy, but it really could've been a lot lousier.
The stimulus will produce more good stuff in the future. By 2015, almost all of us will have an electronic medical record because of the stimulus. The stimulus is also pouring $1 billion into desperately needed "comparative effectiveness research" that will help doctors and patients learn what kind of treatments actually work. There's billions more for data-driven education reforms—Investments in Innovation and School Improvement Grants as well as Race to the Top—that will seek to scale up promising approaches in public schools. And the most exciting changes will transform the way we generate and consume energy. For example, a company called Envia Systems that got a grant from ARPA-E—a modern version of the Manhattan Project—has already developed the world's most powerful lithium-ion battery, which could slice $5,000 off the price of the next Chevy Volt.
Will Americans associate any of this change with the 2009 stimulus? I doubt it. Maybe they will if my book becomes a runaway best-seller.
Would President Romney roll back these programs or A) is it too late and the money is spent? or B) would he actually support them as president because they are fundamentally valuable programs?
During the 2010 campaign, Republicans vowed to cancel all unspent stimulus funds if they took back Congress. They took back the House, but they didn't take back one dime of stimulus money. Romney also says he'll cancel unspent stimulus funds, but there aren't many left to cancel—at this point, mostly health IT, high-speed rail, and some clean-energy dollars—and I'd bet they'll all eventually get spent.
That said, Romney and the Republicans can make sure that much of the stimulus legacy ends with the stimulus. Romney wants to shut down the tax credit for wind power, which could virtually shut down the industry. High-speed rail could die on the vine. Romney has said nice things about ARPA-E—even though it "picks winners and losers"—and as governor he supported health IT and other stimulus-friendly policies, so maybe he'd keep them as president. I wouldn't bet on that, though.
There's a reason most of Romney's ads feature the stimulus (a caricature of the stimulus, but still). He's running against the idea that government can produce positive change, and the stimulus was the ultimate test of that idea. Maybe he'll change his mind if he wins—he's obviously changed his mind before—but presidents tend to try to keep their campaign promises. Obama certainly did.

Chris Christie touts his record, Romney's, in keynote speech

New Jersey governor casts President Obama as too consumed by his own popularity and says Mitt Romney will 'tell us the hard truths.'

Chris Christie

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie addresses the Republican National Convention. (Jae C. Hong / AP Photo / August 28, 2012)

By Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau

August 29, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — Chris Christie put his famously combative leadership style up against a status quo in which leaders have become "paralyzed by our desire to be loved," as he made the case that Mitt Romney would tackle the nation's challenges without regard for political consequences, much as he has done as New Jersey governor.
Calling his rise as a Republican in a blue state "improbable," Christie used his keynote speech to delegates at the party's national convention to cast President Obama as too consumed with his own popularity to lead the country for another term.
Christie referred to Obama only once, but his speech was a rebuke of elected leaders like him who he said put their own political futures ahead of the people's interests. And as the campaign turns toward the finish line, Christie said, the GOP should be clear with voters about the path they would take.
"We believe that if we tell the people the truth they will act bigger than the pettiness we've seen in Washington, D.C.," he said. "We win when we make it about what needs to be done; we lose when we play along with their game of scaring and dividing."
The choice of Christie to deliver the lead political message, following a more personal speech to a national audience by Romney's wife, Ann, reflected the campaign's interest in framing the ticket as "serious about not only fixing the jobs crisis in this country, but also the fiscal crisis," senior Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom said in an interview with ABC and Yahoo News on Tuesday afternoon.
Christie has become a conservative sensation for his successful battles against Democratic interest groups like teachers unions and public employees.
"We need politicians to care more about doing something and less about being something," Christie said. "Believe me, if we can do this in a blue state like New Jersey with a conservative Republican governor, Washington is out of excuses."
After detailing his own accomplishments for some time, Christie pivoted to Romney, saying he would "tell us the hard truths we need to hear to put us back on the path to growth."
Christie's appearance came after a blip of controversy: On the eve of the convention, a New York tabloid reported that Christie had turned down Romney's invitation to join the ticket. Among the explanations: financial rules that would have forced Christie to immediately resign and, more provocatively, the governor's personal view that Romney could not win in November.
On Tuesday, in one of a spate of network interviews setting up his speech, Christie dismissed the story as "garbage."
But in the event of a Romney loss, a Christie bid in 2016 would seem likely, and Tuesday's speech could serve as a springboard — much as Obama's 2004 speech helped loft him into the 2008 race. Christie told NBC on Tuesday that he expected Romney to be accepting the nomination again in 2016. "And so then you're talking about 2020 — long, long way away."
And yet Christie's first stop in Tampa after his speech? An address to the Republican delegates from New Hampshire, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

Mitt Romney: "Outsourcing Pioneer" or Visionary?

Is Mitt Romney a Cold-hearted Opportunist, or is He Able to Find Solutions in Difficult Situations?

Brendan Johnson
President Obama and his campaign should be careful after jumping on the Washington Post's bandwagon in its critical article of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. In calling him an "outsourcing pioneer", they are almost positioning Romney as a visionary, someone who can identify a problem, propose a solution, and act upon it with winning results.

Many major information technology and electronics manufacturing firms, including Intel, Google and Microsoft, have moved jobs overseas, with call centers in Ireland and India or production facilities in China. For some it was the only way to remain competitive. You don't see these companies regretting the moves, and you don't hear about any of them scrambling to bring the jobs back, even in light of countless complaints of customer service nightmares, poor working conditions and production flaws. Apple is dealing with a very public problem with Foxconn's production facilities in China, but we don't hear the outcry to bring those jobs here. While we lament high unemployment, Americans are happy to pay less for everyday goods made overseas. U.S. companies face higher property taxes, minimum wage laws, and organized unions here. Ireland took steps in the 1990's to position itself as an attractive destination, encouraging companies to establish support operations there. Instead of potentially facing a public relations nightmare of threats from a union of call center workers, these companies gladly ship those jobs to any accommodating country at a much lower cost.

Bain Capital uses private equity to invest in companies and make them better, including 'turnaround stories' that bring big returns to its investors, many of which are public pension plans. While it's impossible for Romney to run entirely on his background as founder and CEO of Bain, his experience in seeing opportunities and proposing solutions that saved or improved companies can be compared to the challenge he would face if elected. With any change in ownership or direction, especially in terms of cutting costs, there will be fallout. Americans know we have many areas for improvement, yet we are not seeing any concrete solutions. If we don't turn our story around soon, we may see China, the largest holder of U.S. debt, acting like Bain Capital to save us. We'll have no choice.

Romney as Visionary-in-Chief?

As their economies develop, countries such as China and India will be forced to deal with higher labor costs. Otherwise, they could face a bloody backlash both internally and externally. When it becomes too expensive to pay workers overseas for goods that also have to be shipped back to the U.S., companies will likely start bringing jobs back. The next president can potentially speed up the process by championing laws that reduce the cost of labor and production here, and Romney may have the vision and willingness to take that leap first. As everyone is now acutely aware, he's done it before. In trying to position him as the bad guy, President Obama may be promoting reasons why voters should turn to Romney in November.

Mitt Romney's Dick Swett Problem May Have Forced Him from GOP Race

Mitt Romney Quits Presidential Race

The reason former Governor Mitt Romney's campaign failed, in my estimation, is a lack of genuine conviction. As reported by the Boston Globe, Romney said during a debate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 that he would be stronger on gay rights then the diehard liberal Kennedy. You can't sit there and say in 1994 that you were an independent and did not support much of the Reagan-Bush agenda and expect to win a Republican primary. Watching Romney say that Reagan would have endorsed his presidential candidacy during the most recent Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, was laughable given Romney moderate-to liberal record on social issues.
Romney also admitted to voting for former Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas during a presidential primary in 1992. Romney chalked that vote up to home state pride saying that he did not necessarily endorse Paul Tsongas's agenda. Romney also gave money to Dick Swett's congressional re-election campaign according to newsmeat.com in the early 90's. The headlines of earlier in this campaign about Mitt Romney's Dick Swett problem are enough to get a sophomoric laugh.
The viewpoint that I'm trying to convey is the fact that Romney did not seem to want to admit his past. With Huckabee on taxes and education spending, McCain on global warming and Rudy on abortion and gay rights they all admitted that they didn't always agree with the GOP base. Romney acted like he had simply just gotten smarter and completely changed a plethora of stances in a mere fourteen years. He didn't want to speak about his record and every time someone called him on it he considered a "personal attack." The Political Action Committee Republicans for Choice even made the decision to use their resources this cycle to attack Romney on his past pro-choice views and then switching to the pro-life squad.
I'm sure some may say that Romney's religion hurt him in the South and maybe it did. To me though this is a scapegoat for someone who tried to run as a social conservative when he could have run as a business conservative; his run at Bain Capital and actually creating jobs should have been something he could have played up more. It may have been the old syndrome of trying to be too many things to too many people.
Johnathan Martin. Politico.com "Republicans for Choice to run print/TV ads against Romney"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/Republicans_for_Choice_to_run_tvprint_ads_against_Romney.html

Other Republican Takes Potshots at Mitt Romney

Along with Late Night Comedians, Republican Presidential Hopeful Mike Huckabee Zings Mitt Romney

Roger Gowens
With the April 15 tax deadline nearing, a third part should be added to the axiom about the only sure things in life being death and taxes. With an election drawing nearer, a Presidential election at that, the third part of the trilogy should read: "politicians touting their prowess as hunters". Presidential candidates in particular, are proof of this ever growing trend.
Every 4 years, the obligatory pictures are trotted out of every candidate in hunting gear, most looking more like Elmer Fudd hunting "wabbits" than a real sportsman. As the general election gets into high gear next fall and the field is narrowed down to only two legitimate candidates, plus Ralph Nader (possibly adding a fourth part ot the aforementioned axiom), this phenoma will become even more pronounced.
How much wood could a woodchuck duck?
In 2004, John Kerry regaled the press and public with tales of his "woodchuck" hunting, as if good ol' boy voters in the South and Midwest would be impressed.
Ready, Aim, Liar?
Now come reports of another Bay State resident and Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney waxing eloquent on the trail, hunting for votes. Romney recently told a group of voters that he was a "lifelong hunter" and gun enthusiast. That came as news to officials in the four states that Mitt Romney has called home. There is no record of Mitt Romney ever having a hunting license in Utah, Michigan, Massachusetts or New Hampshire.
Shooting From The Lip?
As you might be aware, late night comics and at least one other Presidential aspirant are taking "potshots" at the former Massachusetts Governor. In an appearance on Face The Nation, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, himself a sportsman, likened Romney's statement to himself claiming to be a lifelong golfer because he "played putt -putt when I was 9 years old and rode in a golf cart a couple of times". Huckabee went on to say that candidates should "match their record with their rhetoric". What a novel idea that would be! Who ever heard of such a thing from a candidate for the highest office in the land, or any office these days.
Huckabee and Romney were both Republican Governors from 2003-07, so one would think they know one another fairly well since Mike Huckabee was the head of the Governors Association for at least part of that time. Mitt Romney's ever-changing story on the subject does not help his cause, except when it comes to fund raising it seems. Romney leads the pack of GOP hopefuls, with Huckabee and most of the others running far behind. Romney, it turns out, has only been hunting twice, once as a teen, the second time as a fundraiser.
The slick Romney, who can lay about as much claim to being a "straightshooter" as Dick Cheney, claimed he was a "varmint hunter" who seldom hunted where he needed a license. Hmmmm. Hunting without a license carries a pretty heavy fine in most states. Maybe his penalty should be to go on a quail hunt with Vice President Cheney.
Whose lifetime is it anyway?
In a 1994 race against Ted Kennedy for the Senate, Mitt Romney bragged that his views didn't "line up with the NRA". He backed the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. Last fall, Romney purchased a lifetime membership in the NRA as he was preparing to announce his Presidential candidacy. Coincidence?
The biggest issue in Mitt Romney's quest to become President is not his being a Mormon, although I can't imagine that not being a problem with GOP Kingmakers Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The official position of the Southern Baptist Convention is that the Mormon Church is a "cult".
No, the real problem with Romney is his flip-flopping positions on so many issues and his counting on short memories when it comes to his statements and long held positions, which seem to change depending on what group he is addressing. Mark Twain once said: "if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything". Any day now, Mitt Romney may be claiming to have hunted with Twain. It wouldn't be that much more outlandish than some of his other pronouncements.
Shooting blanks, shooting himself in the foot, everything but shooting straight is what Romney has been doing in his campaign. Mike Huckabee has warts of his own, prison commutations for one, but in the GOP race for President, he hit a bullseye with his comments on Face The Nation. Now, it's up to voters in the primaries to take aim at Mitt Romney's candidacy. Romney is a "frontrunner" in more ways than one. Oh well, at least we have no reason to suspect Romney as the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas.
The press in 2000 parsed every word that came out of Al Gore's mouth, lambasting anything that wasn't 100% true. We will see if they do the same when it comes to Mitt Romney.
TRANSCRIPT: Chris Christie's RNC Speech in Tampa
NBCNewYork.com
updated 8/28/2012 11:16:02 PM ET2012-08-29T03:16:02

Remarks by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at the Republican National Convention as prepared for delivery on Tuesday, Aug. 28.

Remarks by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at the Republican National Convention as prepared for delivery on Tuesday, Aug. 28.
This stage and this moment are very improbable for me.
A New Jersey Republican delivering the keynote address to our national convention, from a state with 700,000 more Democrats than Republicans. A New Jersey Republican stands before you tonight. Proud of my party, proud of my state and proud of my country. I am the son of an Irish father and a Sicilian mother. My Dad, who I am blessed to have with me here tonight, is gregarious, outgoing and loveable. My Mom, who I lost 8 years ago, was the enforcer. She made sure we all knew who set the rules. In the automobile of life, Dad was just a passenger. Mom was the driver. They both lived hard lives. Dad grew up in poverty. After returning from Army service, he worked at the Breyers Ice Cream plant in the 1950s. With that job and the G.I. bill he put himself through Rutgers University at night to become the first in his family to earn a college degree. Our first family picture was on his graduation day, with Mom beaming next to him, six months pregnant with me. Mom also came from nothing. She was raised by a single mother who took three buses to get to work every day. And mom spent the time she was supposed to be a kid actually raising children - her two younger siblings. She was tough as nails and didn't suffer fools at all. The truth was she couldn't afford to. She spoke the truth - bluntly, directly and without much varnish. I am her son. I was her son as I listened to "Darkness on the Edge of Town" with my high school friends on the Jersey Shore. I was her son as I moved into a studio apartment with Mary Pat to start a marriage that is now 26 years old. I was her son as I coached our sons Andrew and Patrick on the fields of Mendham, and as I watched with pride as our daughters Sarah and Bridget marched with their soccer teams in the Labor Day parade. And I am still her son today, as Governor, following the rules she taught me: to speak from the heart and to fight for your principles. She never thought you get extra credit for just speaking the truth. The greatest lesson Mom ever taught me, though, was this one: she told me there would be times in your life when you have to choose between being loved and being respected. She said to always pick being respected, that love without respect was always fleeting -- but that respect could grow into real, lasting love. Now, of course, she was talking about women. But I have learned over time that it applies just as much to leadership. In fact, I think that advice applies to America today more than ever. I believe we have become paralyzed by our desire to be loved. Our founding fathers had the wisdom to know that social acceptance and popularity is fleeting and that this country's principles needed to be rooted in strengths greater than the passions and emotions of the times. Our leaders today have decided it is more important to be popular, to do what is easy and say "yes," rather than to say no when "no" is what's required. In recent years, we as a country have too often chosen the same path. It's been easy for our leaders to say not us, and not now, in taking on the tough issues. And we've stood silently by and let them get away with it. But tonight, I say enough. I say, together, let's make a much different choice. Tonight, we are speaking up for ourselves and stepping up. We are beginning to do what is right and what is necessary to make our country great again. We are demanding that our leaders stop tearing each other down, and work together to take action on the big things facing America. Tonight, we choose respect over love. We are not afraid. We are taking our country back. We are the great grandchildren of men and women who broke their backs in the name of American ingenuity; the grandchildren of the Greatest Generation; the sons and daughters of immigrants; the brothers and sisters of everyday heroes; the neighbors of entrepreneurs and firefighters, teachers and farmers, veterans and factory workers and everyone in-between who shows up not just on the big days or the good days, but on the bad days and on the hard days. Each and every day. All 365 of them. We are the United States of America. Now we must lead the way our citizens live. To lead as my mother insisted I live, not by avoiding truths, especially the hard ones, but by facing up to them and being the better for it. We cannot afford to do anything less. I know because this was the challenge in New Jersey. When I came into office, I could continue on the same path that led to wealth, jobs and people leaving the state or I could do the job the people elected me to do - to do the big things. There were those who said it couldn't be done. The problems were too big, too politically charged, too broken to fix. But we were on a path we could no longer afford to follow. They said it was impossible to cut taxes in a state where taxes were raised 115 times in eight years. That it was impossible to balance a budget at the same time, with an $11 billion deficit. Three years later, we have three balanced budgets with lower taxes. We did it. They said it was impossible to touch the third rail of politics. To take on the public sector unions and to reform a pension and health benefit system that was headed to bankruptcy. With bipartisan leadership we saved taxpayers $132 billion over 30 years and saved retirees their pension. We did it. They said it was impossible to speak the truth to the teachers union. They were just too powerful. Real teacher tenure reform that demands accountability and ends the guarantee of a job for life regardless of performance would never happen. For the first time in 100 years with bipartisan support, we did it. The disciples of yesterday's politics underestimated the will of the people. They assumed our people were selfish; that when told of the difficult problems, tough choices and complicated solutions, they would simply turn their backs, that they would decide it was every man for himself. Instead, the people of New Jersey stepped up and shared in the sacrifice. They rewarded politicians who led instead of politicians who pandered. We shouldn't be surprised. We've never been a country to shy away from the truth. History shows that we stand up when it counts and it's this quality that has defined our character and our significance in the world. I know this simple truth and I'm not afraid to say it: our ideas are right for America and their ideas have failed America. Let's be clear with the American people tonight. Here's what we believe as Republicans and what they believe as Democrats. We believe in telling hard working families the truth about our country's fiscal realities. Telling them what they already know - the math of federal spending doesn't add up. With $5 trillion in debt added over the last four years, we have no other option but to make the hard choices, cut federal spending and fundamentally reduce the size of government. They believe that the American people don't want to hear the truth about the extent of our fiscal difficulties and need to be coddled by big government. They believe the American people are content to live the lie with them. We believe in telling seniors the truth about our overburdened entitlements. We know seniors not only want these programs to survive, but they just as badly want them secured for their grandchildren. Seniors are not selfish. They believe seniors will always put themselves ahead of their grandchildren. So they prey on their vulnerabilities and scare them with misinformation for the cynical purpose of winning the next election. Their plan: whistle a happy tune while driving us off the fiscal cliff, as long as they are behind the wheel of power. We believe that the majority of teachers in America know our system must be reformed to put students first so that America can compete. Teachers don't teach to become rich or famous. They teach because they love children. We believe that we should honor and reward the good ones while doing what's best for our nation's future - demanding accountability, higher standards and the best teacher in every classroom. They believe the educational establishment will always put themselves ahead of children. That self-interest trumps common sense. They believe in pitting unions against teachers, educators against parents, and lobbyists against children. They believe in teacher's unions. We believe in teachers. We believe that if we tell the people the truth they will act bigger than the pettiness of Washington, D.C. We believe it's possible to forge bipartisan compromise and stand up for conservative principles. It's the power of our ideas, not of our rhetoric, that attracts people to our Party. We win when we make it about what needs to be done; we lose when we play along with their game of scaring and dividing. For make no mistake, the problems are too big to let the American people lose - the slowest economic recovery in decades, a spiraling out of control deficit, an education system that's failing to compete in the world. It doesn't matter how we got here. There is enough blame to go around. What matters now is what we do. I know we can fix our problems. When there are people in the room who care more about doing the job they were elected to do than worrying about winning re-election, it's possible to work together, achieve principled compromise and get results. The people have no patience for any other way. It's simple. We need politicians to care more about doing something and less about being something. Believe me, if we can do this in a blue state with a conservative Republican Governor, Washington is out of excuses. Leadership delivers. Leadership counts. Leadership matters. We have this leader for America. We have a nominee who will tell us the truth and who will lead with conviction. And now he has a running mate who will do the same. We have Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, and we must make them our next President and Vice President. Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths we need to hear to put us back on the path to growth and create good paying private sector jobs again in America. Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths we need to hear to end the torrent of debt that is compromising our future and burying our economy. Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths we need to hear to end the debacle of putting the world's greatest health care system in the hands of federal bureaucrats and putting those bureaucrats between an American citizen and her doctor. We ended an era of absentee leadership without purpose or principle in New Jersey. It's time to end this era of absentee leadership in the Oval Office and send real leaders to the White House. America needs Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and we need them right now. There is doubt and fear for our future in every corner of our country. These feelings are real. This moment is real. It's a moment like this where some skeptics wonder if American greatness is over. How those who have come before us had the spirit and tenacity to lead America to a new era of greatness in the face of challenge. Not to look around and say "not me," but to say, "YES, ME." I have an answer tonight for the skeptics and the naysayers, the dividers and the defenders of the status quo. I have faith in us. I know we can be the men and women our country calls on us to be. I believe in America and her history. There's only one thing missing now. Leadership. It takes leadership that you don't get from reading a poll. You see, Mr. President - real leaders don't follow polls. Real leaders change polls. That's what we need to do now. Change polls through the power of our principles. Change polls through the strength of our convictions. Tonight, our duty is to tell the American people the truth. Our problems are big and the solutions will not be painless. We all must share in the sacrifice. Any leader that tells us differently is simply not telling the truth. I think tonight of the Greatest Generation. We look back and marvel at their courage - overcoming the Great Depression, fighting Nazi tyranny, standing up for freedom around the world. Now it's our time to answer history's call. For make no mistake, every generation will be judged and so will we. What will our children and grandchildren say of us? Will they say we buried our heads in the sand, we assuaged ourselves with the creature comforts we've acquired, that our problems were too big and we were too small, that someone else should make a difference because we can't? Or will they say we stood up and made the tough choices needed to preserve our way of life? I don't know about you, but I don't want my children and grandchildren to have to read in a history book what it was like to live in an American Century. I don't want their only inheritance to be an enormous government that has overtaxed, overspent and over-borrowed a great people into second-class citizenship. I want them to live in a second American Century. A second American Century of strong economic growth where those who are willing to work hard will have good paying jobs to support their families and reach their dreams. A second American Century where real American exceptionalism is not a political punch line, but is evident to everyone in the world just by watching the way our government conducts its business and everyday Americans live their lives. A second American Century where our military is strong, our values are sure, our work ethic is unmatched and our Constitution remains a model for anyone in the world struggling for liberty. Let us choose a path that will be remembered for generations to come. Standing strong for freedom will make the next century as great an American century as the last one. This is the American way. We have never been victims of destiny. We have always been masters of our own. I won't be part of the generation that fails that test and neither will you. It's now time to stand up. There's no time left to waste. If you're willing to stand up with me for America's future, I will stand up with you. If you're willing to fight with me for Mitt Romney, I will fight with you. If you're willing to hear the truth about the hard road ahead, and the rewards for America that truth will bear, I'm here to begin with you this new era of truth-telling. Tonight, we choose the path that has always defined our nation's history. Tonight, we finally and firmly answer the call that so many generations have had the courage to answer before us. Tonight, we stand up for Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States. And, together, we stand up once again for American greatness.
 
 
 

--
Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com
 
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
 
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
 
 

0 comments:

Post a Comment