2nd Presidential Debate

Again in progess... maybe I'll finish this time? Who knows.
 

Obama was definitely more on top of things this time around, though both talked over the moderator at times and were tough on each other.

Conservatives say Obama danced around the questions. I, like progressives, thought Romney seemed to care about coming back to "you had 4 years, I can do better" rather than answering with specifics on his plans- or dancing around the question. The slow recovery thing is a bad argument, but one they try and push- I mean, we're recovering, not free falling- why should I believe Romney would make us recover faster (after Obama recued us from the abyss (yes, I know, that's overdramatic)) because he says so?

I am a little tired of people saying turn off the sound or only listen to the audio to figure out who REALLY won. In a debate where both people are not totally making fools of themselves or at least both making points and making rebuttals, each party is going to see what they want, and ignore the other stuff. And now I will tell you what I see :)

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate

Jeremy: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can — what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

R:  1.Make it easier to afford college and 2. create jobs for when you get out. Answered the question yes I can assure you, but lacking on HOW. As usual. 
Brought up Mass. top quarter of class gets John and Abigail Adams scholarship for 4 yrs tuition free- didn't promise that or say who pays for it. He said he would grow Pell Grant program, but there has been back and forth on details- plan would or wouldn't grow it? Brought up 4 yrs of middle class squeeze and blamed it all on Obama, as though the recession didn't start before he took office. Instead of details on how to create jobs, he keeps saying he "has what it takes," is a businessman, etc. Kind of a non-answer. Don't even have to fact check that!

O: Cites 5 million jobs created. That's one of those things that is true, he's a net job creator, but we have lost a lot of jobs to the recession, so it's not a number to brag about. But he didn't cause the recession...
Brought up Romney and his let Detroit go bankrupt op ed. Good point.
Education- talks about record on student loans
Energy- invest in the current natural gas and also the future- solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars
Deficit- Make wealthy pay more,  invest war money into infrastructure and education... that money is borrowed, though.

*Both candidates mention poor Jeremy in the questions to come. He's the new stump speech example of "I care"! A little funny.

Crowley: Let me ask you for a more immediate answer, beginning with Mr. Romley

R: Obama's policies haven't put Americans back to work, fewer Americans working (jobs numbers spun the other way) . Says his 5 point plan will make 12 million new jobs...The problem is that people have said 12 million will be created even if Obama stays in office and things stay the same...And 5 point plan seems to be 5 more generalities/goals rather than actual specifics, though saying you have 5 points sounds better than - I have what it takes. He tried to refute teh Detroit thing saying the President did what he actually suggested in his op ed and it worked- bankrupt them... except the President helped them back up again and Romney would not have and the necessary loans wouldn't have been there and the companies would have been sold piece by piece.

O: Rightly refuted Romney's Detroit response. Called out his 5 point plan as favoring wealthy...not sure...I think it's just too general. Equated Romney's plans with Bush's that got us into the recession.

Romney tries to talk over Crowley with more on Detroit...

Phillip: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

 Neither of them really answer the question, but I don't know that the question's answer is related all that much to the election, so I guess the candidates made it relevant in not answering it directly.

O: Production is up, coal production and employment up. Continue drilling, but tweak/ regulate for efficiency and also focus on future, clean energy equally.

Crowley: Governor, on the subject of gas prices.

R: Brings up that production is down on federal land, up on private in ND, but forgets to tell the whole story - what about the 2010 oil spill- had to shut things down, really no choice.

When the president ran for office, he said, if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. (Did he and what does it mean?)

Claims Obama isn't Mr. Oil, Mr. Gas, Mr. Coal, wants clean energy, but claims Obama is holding us back. 

Promises energy independence, but again doesn't say how.

They're already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy.
(If manuf jobs are coming back under Obama, why do we need you?)

Crowley: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up, and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?

VP Debate

In progress... but here it is...

There is a lot of talk about Biden smirking and laughing, what is so funny, it's disrespectful, look how respectful Ryan was, etc. Some of Ryan's answers were funny. The centrifuges spinning faster? C'mon. Totally funny. 

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/11/162754053/transcript-biden-ryan-vice-presidential-debate

1. Libya. Pre planned, not video /protest driven. Intel failure?

Biden didn't give the best answer initially, but did bring up the wider security issues:
Iraq- Romney wanted to leave troops, Obama ended it.
Afghanistan- Obama set a date to get out, Romney leaves that very ambiguous
Bin Laden- Obama's highest priority from day one, Romney "wouldn't move heaven and earth" to get him, the 9/11 perp, the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last statement was that we didn't need more wars, could have brought up the Euro tour in which Romney fumbled his way through... another indicator of the opposite of clear vision, steady hand.

Of course Ryan siezed on the "was it protest, was it planned" confusion and says (with the benefit of hindsight) that they'll call it what it was- a terrorist attack. Hard to believe when the first thing Romney did was call that press conference condemning Obama for apologizing and in the process getting his own facts totally wrong!
He claims to have had the same position as Obama on getting out of Iraq, but wanted Status of Forces which Obama didn't get (Biden addresses later that Republicans blocked it?)
Threw a random comment about veterans in and there- and Biden's son- I guess to try and make him seem like he's being magnanimous,, which I don't think Biden took the opportunity to attack...
Calls the 2014 deadline projecting weakness ??? even though his ticket agrees with it.
Tired and oft repeated line about "unraveling of Obama foreign policy" (the new apology line replacement?)

2. Raddatz: to Ryan- is the apology thing appropriate in the middle of the crisis?
Ryan said Obama had same position as Romney and disavowed their Cairo statement, repeating the fact confusion Romney was called out for at the time.
Should have supported Iran 2009 Green Revolution sooner (just time wise, or with force, what does he mean)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-iran/index.html
Should not have called Assad a reformer when he used Russian guns on his own (Russia opening as to why to proceed with caution on Syria...not taken I think)- I agree he's no reformer, but Clinton was talking about some in Congress thinking that, not in talking about White House love for him.
Should not be making defense cuts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-claims-about-obamas-defense-cuts/2012/10/06/2d3917d6-0fd1-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_blog.html
Tries to spin the weakness in foreign policy line again... he will keep trying, but never comes up with anything good to support that very emphatic point of his.

Biden got to make a few points, referred to the $300 million in embassy cuts (fact check is inconclusive on being that specific ,but lack of details on what cuts also doesn't help RR), the Libya response and Romney's bungled facts, and countered the weakness argument with the facts of the difference Obama made in the world's trust and confidence being repaired, getting Russia and China on board for the most crippling sanctions on Iran.

3. Raddatz: Back to Libya. Good moderating-bringing them back. When were you told? Why talk about protesters if it was planned, not spontaneous. Why did it go on for weeks.

Biden tried to say they announced things as info was made available by intel community. Then Raddatz tried to ask about the request for more embassy security again. Repeated that they said what they knew, we'll get to the bottom of it, supposed to pull together in an attack, not call press conference attacking president, that's not leadership. (good point, esp since Romney didn't have facts straight and used tragedy for political gain right away)

(The Libya thing seems to be blown out of proportion a bit in that the embassy just wanted a few guards to stay on longer, they weren't asking for a large marine contingent for a big threat they had been telling Washington about for months or anything. Eric Nordstrom at the House probe said the attack was not like anything they'd seen or expected and the few guards they wanted probably wouldn't have made a difference. So teh effort to prove this was like Bush and 9/11 kind of falls flat, but Biden didn't grab that opportunity, so it will be seen as a win for Ryan.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57529888/house-probes-security-leading-up-to-libya-attack/

The request was handled at the State Department, so the President and Vice President probably didn't know. And the request was for Tripoli, not so much for Benghazi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/cables-show-requests-to-state-dept-for-security-in-libya-were-focused-on-tripoli.html?hp&_r=0

4. Raddatz tries hard to ask Ryan about the apology theme, the book entitled No Apologies (  :)  ), should we apologize for burning Qurans and urinating of corpses?

Ryan on corpses- "of course!"- Raddatz interrupts and asks about Qurans- Ryan totally ignores...so what does he think about that one? Is it fine to burn Qurans?
He again tries to say we
=shouldn't apologize for our values (implying that we did??), - either referring to the tired debunked apology tour or Romney's criticism of the Cairo embassy tweet sent to calm tensions, not authorized by White House
=shouldn't call Mubarak good one day and call for ouster the next,
=appears to reference the 1982 marine barrack attack, but then shifts it back to the Benghazi embassy security and quotes the unraveling of fp talking point again.

Ryan begins on Iran and Raddatz directs it firmly to Iran. Both agree Iran must not get nuke weapon and will use force if necessary. Gates says attack on facility would be catastrophic, haunting us for generations.
5. Both- how effective is a military strike on Iran?

Ryan was quite comical on this one and begins with the lie that Iran had enough fissile material for one and under Obama, now has enough for five ??? (Biden points out that they don't have a weapon to put it in, so they are not close, but he forgot to say 5 is a big stretch of the truth and they don't have that much enriched enough to make the weapons- so there are many reasons to support Iran being far from a weapon.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/vice-presidential-debate-live-blog/

Romney supported sanctions since 2007, Ryan since 2009- admin blocked them every step of the way (?)
(Obama actually was slow at first in order to build a coalition, something I elected him specifically for (diplomacy, no cowboy go it alone antics), and stepped it up after the EU joined. The crippling sanctions would have hurt allies, so we had to work that out, too.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-ryan-biden-iran-sanctions-20121011,0,1293383.story


Some of the repetitive, well-debunked or funny points he made:
*racing toward a nuke
*four years closer to a nuke
*stepping up terrorist attacks (Saudi ambassador)
*wants to change minds of ayatollahs ???

Biden makes a point about Republican Congress not being able to get support of Russia and China for sanctions and on not doing enough- suggests they want war.
Ryan says we want to prevent war
Biden effectively refutes the fissile material claim and says we could deal a military blow to Iran, but since they aren't close to a bomb, that's not the course of action now.

Ryan continues the watered down sanctions claim, adds a criticism of space/snub with Israel and not meeting publicly with Netanyahu (Bibi, as both insist on calling him to prove familiarity), and actually criticizes the admin for not threatening war more it seems (walked back all options talk).

Raddatz asks about how Ryan will "change their mind" on the nuke in the time Netanyahu has set for spring with his red line.

Ryan bumbles around and ends up with- we'll debate a timeline and -you have to have credibility- we have it, they don't ... again.

Biden pretty well establishes that sanctions are working and they have credibility and hits back on the distance with Israel, pointing out (that it is possible to be close even if you don't so teh photo op) that they talked beforehand and are in close contact even if they didn't hang out after the UN in NY.

Biden says stuff and malarkey, is called out by Raddatz, and goes on to make a great point about war being on the table, but not in view because they don't have a weapon, which is our goal (to keep it from happening), sanctions are working, they are more isolated than when they took office.

Raddatz addresses Ryan, he interrupts, saying thank goodness we have the sanctions despite Obama admin opposition...  (again with that distortion)
Ryan: repeats 4 yrs closer to a nuke / Biden says no  in the back and forth

Raddatz accuses Biden of meaning that Iran doesn't want a weapon. I think that was wrong of her. Maybe she's trying extra hard to please the right who thinks she's in Obama's pocket because she wants to help her ex-husband's friends he attended her wedding in the 90s before he even knew Biden. He's been saying the uranium's not enriched to the proper level, Ryan exaggerated with 5 bombs, and there's no weapon to put any material in- hardly saying Iran doesn't want one. And he brings up the necessity of diplomacy, bringing everyone together against the bomb, for sanctions.

Raddatz asks Ryan about Gates statement that an attack on the nuke facility could be catastrophic.
Ryan: Tries not so well to make a credibility point about walking back again- his statement makes Iran think they can get a bomb (what do we do, threaten war all the time?), precondition statement, silent 9 days on Green Rev, space between Israel, Russia watered down sanctions

Biden tries to respond, but Raddatz asks a question she tried to ask earlier- which is worse another war in Mid East or Iran with nuke?

Ryan: nuclear armed Iran that triggers arms race, then adds they want to wipe out Israel and call us the Great Satan
Biden : war is last resort, sanctions are working and we are working with Israel, to refute that Israel at arm's length point, and throws in a flip flop comment about Romney

Raddatz: Can you get unemployment to under 6 percent, and how long will it take?
Biden says they can, but don't know how long. Rightly points out where we started- free fall, hits on helping middle class, rescue of GM (Romney- let Detroit go bankrupt), 47%, RR won't give middle class a cut unless wealthy get it too.
Ryan compares Scranton and Janesville, has that exchange with Biden about Scranton's unemployment and says the nations unemployment is also going way up. Biden rightly laughs and corrects him since the recent numbers were actually down. Ryan: Admits the free fall situation inherited, but says we are going in wrong direction (after providing nothing else but the assertion that unemployment is up, contradicting facts) and tries to push the slow recovery idea, which seems to be a bad argument seeing as how we are talking about a recovery and not worse. Mentions 5 point plan (supposedly adding detail to ideas..., but need details on each point- shady still). Makes the car guy comment. Wow! Big opening. Then goes into how charitable Romney is personally. ??? Relevance? And an opening to Biden's tragic history...  Claims the Detroit quote is misquote, and digs at Biden about gaffes-" I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way." Then mentions opportunity and upward mobility as RR admin goal.

Biden reinforces that Romney's 47% was different than Biden's little slips, then takes that opening to tell of his own tragedy. Took on Ryan's car guy comment again, this time mentioning two wars on credit, jobs bill opposition, tax cuts, Obama saved jobs, prescription drugs on credit. He does mix up how he voted I think... Does note irony of doing all that while emphasizing the debt reduction priority.

Ryan : Obama came in with Congress control and just did stimulus. RAddatz asks him again if he could get it lower than 6%. He generalizes about growing economy and creating 12 million jobs. Mentions stimulus and DOE corruption charges.

Biden points out that Ryan's colleague started the investigation that didn't find any corruption. And pointedly notes that Ryan sent 2 letters asking for stimulus funds. Bam. He admits it.

After the gotcha that really got him, he throws out electric cars in Finland, windmills in China, borrowing from China.

Biden comes back with a defense for the green jobs- 4% failed, that's better than investment bankers 40% loss.

Raddatz keeps things going with "Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, Mr. Ryan?"










***********************************
Romney Ryan tax plan:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/
http://www.freep.com/article/20121012/COL10/121012061/Rochelle-Riley-Romney-Ryan-ticket-should-frighten-middle-class-Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romney-tax-math_n_1956697.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Romney won't raise taxes on middle class because he says so...

Fact checking is great, but one I saw recently had me wondering...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/05/796961/fact-check-romney-taxes-dnc/

Fact checkers judged Julian Castro's  statement that Mitt Romney will raise taxes on the middle class as misleading because Romney said he wouldn't and there's not enough details out on his economic plan to really verify that. The RNC Convention had a ton of vague "big ideas" but no actual numbers or details.

CNN fact check on this taxes on the middle class business

Fact check of Romney saying Obama raised taxes on middle class

Romney is now saying five studies back him up that he can cut taxes, bring in the same revenue. Two are editorials, one is by an adviser to the Romney campaign, and one is AEI, the conservative think tank. The fact check says this is - mostly false.

Obama proves he is qualified; Romney flails

Let's get some statements, then sort out the timeline ;)

Romney:  "When our grounds are being attacked, and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. And apology for America's values is never the right course," he said, slamming the Obama administration for "sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks."

Obama:  Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."  and here are his remarks that embody true leadership and strength rather than threats and accusations based on bungled facts.

Clinton:  “Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith, and as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace” and “a free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security.”

Politicians on social media...(monumentally bad idea):

Reince Priebus:   “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."

Allen West (R-FL, Tea Party):  Repeats weakness, apology, Jimmy Carter talking points, accuses media of protecting President when Romney should be cross examined because he made incorrect statements and is running for president, advocates bringing diplomats home, and unbelievably repeats the incorrect timeline of the Embassy condemnation of the video (confused with White House statement) as a response to the Libya attack.

Jim DeMint (R-SC):  “Governor Romney is absolutely right, there is no justification for these deadly attacks and we should never apologize for American freedom,”

Sarah Palin- Classic Palin: crude, factually incorrect and includes debunked Republican talking points. On Facebook...

Donald Rumsfeld:  The attacks on our embassies & diplomats are a result of perceived American weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out.

--------------------

On September 11 of this year, our ambassador to Libya died, along with 3 employees. The timeline generally starts at one showing of an anti-Islam movie which barely anyone attended and the trailer for it which, rather, may have been the thing that circulated widely. The film details are sketchy, the funding and producer's details are not known, but an Egyptian Christian ex-con could be involved and the Florida Quran burning pastor had much praise for it. When picked up by Arabic news, this inflamed tensions in the Middle East because wild rumor had it that it was supported by our government (as films must be there) and viewed widely in America, neither of which is true. 

It is widely thought to be an event that extremists used to their advantage and not necessarily the cause of the Cairo protest that turned angry and the tragic Libya embassy attack. It appears to be a well planned attack in the case of Libya. I'll be watching to see if the timing video is coincidence, if the ex-con suspected to be involved with the video was giving info to extremists, or if by chance both the video makers and the extremists wanted to use 9/11 to broadcast their hateful messages.

This is usually a time for putting politics aside and for expressing sympathy for victims' families together as Americans (or humans). Instead, Romney got his facts out of order and used that mistake to try and prop up the long debunked "apology tour" talking point to say Obama is not a leader and we need Romney to provide that leadership in Washington. Misguided is an understatement.

There are several things wrong, here. All pretty much lead one to conclude Romney shouldn't be anywhere close to an office that informs American foreign policy. He would be a disaster. GWB certainly made bad choices in foreign policy and advisers, but Romney is gunning for war and alienating allies well before we vote on who will make the best decisions in cases like these! 

1. He got the facts wrong.
*Obama did not apologize;
*the Twitter statement of tolerance was not an apology and came one guy from the embassy, not the White House;
*and the embassy statement was made BEFORE the attack to cool tensions ignited by an anti-Islam video.

2. He shamefully used the deaths of 4 Americans for political gain, along with Ryan and RNC chair Preibus.

3. It appears that he wasn't moved to make a statement condemning violence or expressing condolences or urging Americans to come together in crisis- his aides urged him to make a political statement separating him from Obama and dividing the nation.

4. Romney, Ryan also tried to tie in the "no leadership" talking point, and in the process proved Obama is the one you want in a crisis, without a doubt.

One of the tired Republican talking points seems to be that Obama lacks leadership, but ironically, this is the very thing in which Romney keeps displaying his profound lack of understanding and leadership. Just as McCain jumped the gun and made a spectacle of himself when the bottom dropped out of the economy (wanting to stop the campaign and debates to appear to be doing something), Romney with his gaffe ridden European tour, irresponsible Libya comments and criticism of Obama's careful diplomacy in favor of Romeny and Ryan's guns blazing, sabre rattling "American strength" does not inspire confidence the way a leader should in times of trouble. In fact, it goes beyond not inspiring confidence, though-  his way is bellicose and coarse, his approach is belligerent, undiplomatic and he is unqualified for the presidency.

Romney Gymnastics

Flip flopin' like crazy...


So I was aware of Romney's confusing health care flip flop and the abortion and gun control etch-a-sketch, but apparently there are more...


John McCain's research from the 2008 election cites 14


Politifact's take


A Romney vs McCain flip flop test by The Washinton Post


And Rolling Stone's top flip flops


***


The Comedy Central video narrated by Leonard Nimoy highlights some as well :)

Jerusalem is given to Israel; both parties clueless

The historic vote on Jerusalem being given to Israel. Final status negotiations? We don't need 'em. We already wrote the outcome. Go through the motions, meet with Palestinians, take the vote, but you know what the outcome is. Ask Israel. We are working off of their paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ_w_e-fs1s


What a spectacular show that DNC convention was! For most of the speeches, that is sincere. For one part in particular, this is extremely sarcastic. 

The passing of motions, two thirds vote, etc verbally- I've got to say that's the worst way to make a decision, especially when you've got a coliseum full of participants. Are they judging a dance contest? Are they on Sabado Gigante?? I couldn't tell. Shouldn't this be taken more seriously? 

 And what about leaving out the Palestinians in this whole charade? This impacts them more than it does us. What are we doing saying anything about this?? And where were they in this decision?

And third- I didn't know I had this many- what are Democrats doing letting Republicans write their platform? Stand up for peace, diplomacy; don't cave to extremists.

How many times did it take to get the "right" answer? I didn't know you could keep calling for a vote until it came out they way you wanted. Maybe Congress should operate this way. And by right, I mean the one the teleprompter already had on there. It was already decided. This voting garbage is just theater. (Hmm... a metaphor for our electoral process?)  On the third try, I definitely wouldn't call that two thirds! He must have just got tired of standing up there or something. Or he didn't know what to do if it didn't pass. After 3 times, all very close noise-wise, should they not take an actual vote?? Ridiculous! Who orchestrated that "voting" display of solidarity and door mattery for Israel, the far right- I'm not sure who they were trying to please, here.

RNC Convention fun and facts and fun with facts

Several superstar Romney fans have made news... what to say, what to say...

Enjoy!


Chuck Norris's Romney endorsement video
1000 years of darkness if Obama is elected? Wow! :)

Hank Williams Jr is now. insisting Obama's a Muslim who hates farming, military, and the US. Last year he apparently compared him to Hitler. Nice.

Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair at the RNC convention.


The whole RNC Convention in Tampa, or maybe it was just the first night?, was based on a misinterpreted antecedent. What's that about? President Obama said "you didn't build that," referring to roads and bridges, the original American system of government- we came together to build it, but Republicans took the opportunity to drop the context and say that Obama's saying you didn't build your business, he did.

A great Comedy Central sketch narrated by Leonard Nimoy that highlights how silly the out of context remark is and how ridiculous the "I built that" thing is when taken to extremes:
Mitt Romney: A Human Being Who Built That

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  --President Obama

The cropping context out of the picture strategy is kind of a theme...


Ryan and his Janesville plant-  just wrong in the assumptions prior to the convention. He ended up getting Obama's quote right for the convention, but misled by leaving out some context.

Ryan said Obama did nothing with the Simpson- Bowles commission on deficit reduction- forgot to mention he voted against it himself. I don't know if Romney has made the accusation against Obama, but he claims his plan is similar to the commission's.

Ryan essentially said S & P downgrade is Obama's fault- left out that a reason for the downgrade was the Congress impasse (Ryan led the charge to politicize) and the threat that Republicans wouldn't raise taxes.

Ryan, Romney, their ads, and various others accused Obama of funneling money from Medicare ($716 million or some such), but forgot to mention his Ryan plan does the same.


Both sides do it, but there are some glaring instances in the Republican convention where when the context is revealed, you feel a little embarrassed for them.


Ryan said don't forget speech is about big ideas when confronted with various misstatements. :)

Ryan, however, appears to have made the calculation that the misleading won't hurt him with voters. He might be right. CNN's David Gergen, while acknowledging some "misstatements" in Ryan's address, suggested that pundits focus elsewhere. "But let's not forget that this was a speech about big ideas," he told his audience.  --http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/paul-ryan-address_n_1841819.html

Romney said he wasn't going to let fact checkers run the campaign. That's the understatement of the year!

Big on "ideas" sparse on details- also a theme- that with the shifting position one and some say these things weren't resolved on the last night of the convention, his opportunity to shine.

Here's the Guardian live blogging the Republican convention like a woman scorned ;) Funny stuff.

Romney said Americans come together after elections, but 8 days after Obama was elected, he was on a talk show saying his policies failed- or that he wanted them to?!  And, Republicans (more than a few fringe people) made it known they would oppose everything Obama tried to do. That seems unprecedented to me. I thought Americans tended to come together after elections as well.

Romney for his part, has a few misstatements as well. Even after the European gaffe tour and the apology/diplomacy tour gaffe...

He's going to create 12 million jobs, which would be created no matter who is president...

Washington Post fact check
Politifact Mitt Romney file
Fact Check .org

And more stuff to look for:
*He says he/Bain was responsible for the IN mill, Steel Dynamics
*$716 Medicare thing again
*Accuses of and criticizes military cuts
*Claimed Obama would raise taxes on middle class via Obamacare (implied)- fact check sided with Romney when Obama accused Romney of raising taxes on the middle class because Romney said he wouldn't do it and there aren't any details in his plan to prove.
* He claims incomes are down, gas prices double and that it's Obama's fault.


After the Republican convention, it seems the message is still fuzzy, They use things like lead, reapply, we'll get it done, in contrast to Bill Clinton's numerous numbers and specifics. Not to snub Obama, but Clinton's was a whopping 50 minutes. Wow. :)

The Elephant in the Room

An old months-old post.... I've since written something on values voting that essentially says the same thing.


I used this phrase before, but didn't realize it's double meaning until someone pointed it out. :) So, yes, pun intended (this time).

People who are members of the Lord's body the church of Christ) are going to know more about what I'm talking about, but many things will be relevant to all who think about religion.

It's election time again and Christians are talking (in and out of the church building) about abortion and gay marriage and being a Christian in and out of the voting booth. It doesn't help that we've just passed an amendment to the state constitution here to ban gay marriage, so there's even more... ideas being exchanged, shall we say. There is a long held belief that being a Christian in the voting booth means voting Republican, with the implication that voting Democrat is sinful or nearly so (or agreeing with one or several ideas associated with Democrats means you support abortion and homosexuality and hence think it is not sin). These specifics are never really stated, but hinted at with the vote your values language and "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth" types of things, hence the elephant in the room.

I personally think this logic goes farther than scripture.


Why only these two issues to determine our morals?

Why choose two sins to determine morality by law that most Christians don't struggle with as opposed to more common ones?

Why must we have these things banned in law to be acceptable to God? And why not the other sins- are we ranking them? Have these two, abortion and homosexuality, been politicized? (Think how politically viable banning alcohol and divorce (except in the case of infidelity) and remarriage (except in the case of death and infidelity- for the one party) would be...)

A president governs the country, why not choose him based on qualifications for the job rather than his stance on banning two sins in particular above all others? We aren't electing an elder to the state church, after all.

Should we be more concerned with enacting laws to ban sin or teaching individuals? I ask this because of Jesus' approach, not necessarily as an actual choice. He commanded the gospel to be taught, not Rome to be toppled and replaced by the church or a democracy that enacted laws that banned sin.


A problem I see is that sometimes we speak in terms of putting God first as a nation, but we will be judged individually. There is no national salvation.

Another problem comes from the best of intentions. We are to stand up for Christ and rightly divide the word and not compromise on truth because it comes from a perfect authority. It seems that sometimes this same uncompromising approach seeps into the political beliefs (which involve fallible men and definitely imperfect doctrine) as well- for example, voting Republican= godly; voting Democrat= sin.  I agree that there aren't many paths to heaven; there is one. I don't think we can say the same about politics. There are many different issues and each one you can approach in a godly or ungodly way. Christians are going to disagree on which issues are important for governing and how much government should be in which things.

I imagine there are a ton of smart people who will have an answer for every one of my points, but what I'm saying is let's make sure the line in the sand we draw is scriptural and not political. With all due respect to many good people, I think it goes beyond scripture to say one party is a Godly choice or that you are not putting God first if you choose this or that party or that you will go to hell if you vote for this or that candidate.

Election 2012, foreign policy and Republicans... oh my

(I've combined 2 drafts, so I put the dates to make it a little less of a mess.)


September 5, 2012: A common talking point for Romney, Ryan and maybe others is the apology tour Obama supposedly went on- when Romney will go on a jobs tour. Ha ha! Except he confused apology with diplomacy. Oops!


Spetember 9, 2012:  He had a run-in with NASCAR before this weekend, but apparently, it went more smoothly than last time when he replied to the question of are you a fan with:

“Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners.”

And on Osama bin Laden, Romney said that of course he would have done the same (even Jimmy Carter would have- it (the Carter comparison effort) started earlier than the conventions), so it's really no big deal that this happened while Obama was in office. Hmm... After seeing Romney's lack of knowledge and skills in the foreign policy arena, I'm thinking that no he couldn't do what Obama did in killing Osama bin Laden. That took leadership,  cooperation and diplomacy as well as military skill- and Romney just doesn't have that in him what with calling diplomacy apology and that "shambolic" European tour.

A draft from May 28, 2012:

Just watched on CNN, Romney and McCain doing a Memorial Day event. Rep. Issa interestingly says we have a responsibility to step in when lives and human rights are at stake, especially in the region with Israel, Jordan and he listed others. Israel and human rights...that's another story...

He claims a Romney admin would jump right in and save the day in Syria by arming the opposition groups, preferably with NATO, rather than our own troops. It's pretty easy to keep such a hard line when you're not sacrificing your own people, I guess. Not to mention, with Romney's Bush foreign policy team, intervention in the Middle East would be disasterous. Maybe they wouldn't need lies of WMD to start something and get in there to install a US friendly Western style democracy with the barrel of a gun that doesn't have a hope of surviving due to the lack of consideration for the people the government is supposed to serve.

They should stick with the economy because I'm NOT buying Romney with no foreign policy experience and a background that doesn't inspire confidence (like Obama's did for me) and a Bush foreign policy team is going to fix all the hot spots of the day, finish bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan (if that's the plan- maybe he wants to keep them there?? Who knows?? Has he said?), and spend a ton on the military.

Romney is promising big spending on military because a strong military supposedly prevents wars...  Has he heard:
“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” --Albert Einstein

This is from March when Romney wasn't advocating military action in Syria, but McCain, his supporter that he's using to boost his foreign policy cred, would:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/06/romney-breaks-with-mccain-on-syria/


September 5, 2012:

I was right to be worried about this guy Romney and foreign policy. His European listen and learn tour took a rather crazy right turn and became tell everyone what to do and offend everyone you speak to tour- except Israel to whom he gave free reign to make our policy, move capitals when the mood strikes us, and we promise to execute it. Even if  they USS Liberty us again, we'll be right there killing whoever they want, giving them whatever money and weapons they think they need to fight the ever growing "demographic threat."

London- Romney criticized them for not being prepared for the 2012 Olympics. He not only appeared to criticize the leadership, but the British people, saying there are 3 keys to success and he wasn't sure the British public was up to creating the buzz. Ouch. Not long ago, Romney's campaign executed another gaffe about Obama not understanding Britain's and our Anglo Saxon ties...but he really doesn't know how to do diplomacy with an ally- and that's scary. What will he say to someone we consider hostile that we try and make peace with?? Us good. You bad. We bomb. ???

The British were ready with the rebuttal- the American Borat, shambolic visit, it's easy to put on an Olympics in the middle of nowhere. :) All spot on. :)

Poland- He's accused of trying to restart the cold war here. Whoa. And his aide cussed out a reporter I think. 

Israel- Possibly the biggest issue was that he said that the Jewish culture is the reason Jews make more money than occupied Palestinians. Really?? So, being occupied, having money confiscated, infrastructure bulldozed has nothing to do with it. Oh. 

Romney wished Jews and happy fasting holiday and never mentions Ramadan, the month long Muslim fasting holiday, not to mention ignoring Palestinian leadership when it came time for scheduling meetings.

He complimented Israel on their socialized medicine?!?! I'm confused. Isn't he (or his supporters) supposed to be calling Obama a socialist and saying how bad that is? This is the Republican line, but when in Israel, you praise everything they do- they can do no wrong. And with Romneycare in Massachusetts, what does this guy believe is the right way with regards to healthcare? He talks a Republican game, but enacts and endorses what Rebublicans call socialism.

He promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem and called this the capital of Israel??? I know this is a favorite lip service line to woo Jewish voters, but this is an issue for Israel and the Palestinians to decide and negotiate when they decide if they are going to live in one or two states with freedom and equal rights- not the US and DEFINITELY not a mere candidate for president! Coming from a Republican, you can consider it proof positive he'll ignore Palestinians and do whatever Israel wants- whether it is good for us of not. 

And- he essentially told Israel we'll back them up if they want to attack Iran. President Obama has said something to that effect, but urges restraint, diplomacy, caution. This goes beyond US policy and what should be said by a candidate on a listen and learn tour. Romney really needs to do more listening.

Values Voting (?)

Love that code word. Values. You know exactly what people are talking about- banning abortion and gay marriage. And I just heard the other day that Israel is a values issue. What?? Obsequiously supporting and defending with all we have this nation that brutally oppresses/dispossesses another population and calls births of the occupied people a threatening demographic time bomb is a value, something God wants you to do?? Right off a cliff. Crazy.

Anyway, I was doing some more thinking on politics and religion as I always do. I don't think God is for one party/candidate or the other or that a vote will send you to hell, but I always re-think it since this is not a majority opinion where I am- or maybe it is a minority opinion (spoken of in code, like- "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth," "values," etc)  and I believe it to be in opposition to the Bible so it just bothers me that much. But I could be wrong. So I continue my exhausting thought process...

Some frame this as candidate A wants to ban abortion and gay marriage, these are "Biblical issues," therefore candidate A voters are doing God's will; while candidate B wants to let people make their own decision (on these particular Biblical issues), so he is for sin and if you vote for him, you are "approving of such" (Rom 1:32) and deserving of death (spiritual). I think this is a stretch in many ways.  If voting, say, Democrat is a sin because of the assumption above, then why is it ok to spend money in places that sell alcohol or support candidates who have had divorces or candidates who place an entire book of false doctrine ahead of the Bible? Why not say greed and giving is a Biblical issue, so how can you vote Republican when they want to cut aid to the poor, make it easier for the wealthy to make more money, support Paul Ryan who idolizes Ayn Rand, the atheist who preaches selfishness? 

So now both parties are out. Must you embrace everything the party does/says/is? Does voting mean you approve of such or just that you think A or B is the best person for the job? There are more problems with the assumption, but I'll get the that later.

I wonder if there is a difference between those who favor banning sin by law who don't sin and those who don't necessarily support sin being made illegal, yet who also choose not to sin. Is one more righteous, as some would have us believe? Are those who don't necessarily want sin banned by law guilty of the sin even though they believe, do and teach God's will. Is living a faithful life, choosing not to sin, refusing to say God approves of said sins not enough?

Then we go back to Jesus. Is this what he stood for? Did he overthrow Rome and put a government in power that made sins illegal or encourage anyone to do that? Was not the purpose of the old law to bring us to Christ, rather than the opposite or to construct a new law that was like the old one minus the ritual and animal sacrifice? Is the goal to teach people or to keep them from sinning? I guess it is opinion whether you think having laws banning sin teaches or inflames, provokes and hardens hearts. I know I need to spend less time on politics and more on spiritual matters to be more Christ-like, but Christ didn't have a political test you had to pass. Politicizing certain Bible issues and not others is cherry picking, inconsistent, divisive, and hypocritical when political positions are used as a test of faith for someone else-- especially while your own candidate/party's Biblical issues are ignored.

Speaking of inconsistency, conservatives are usually for people choosing, not government. Why should government dictate abortion and gay marriage? Should government be IN religion and NOT in your money- taxes, etc? This seems a bit backwards to me. I'd rather have them in my money and not my religion if I had to choose. The conservative position on wanting the government to dictate on certain moral issues gets a little more absurd when we factor in the current Romney-Ryan ticket. You trust a Mormon, who baptizes the dead without consent (from family, last wishes, etc), whose religion didn't allow African Americans in for a long time, believes in the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible (the former contradicts the latter) to have MORE of a say in your religion or to be the one to get the country morally on track? And Paul Ryan with his Ayn Rand problem- he idolizes her and gives her books out as gifts to his staff. She is an atheist who promotes selfishness, along with the totally free market, no regulation economics. These are the people you want in charge of your values at the government level?

And this is just religion and politics... maybe I'll post the problems with his foreign policy, immigration, health plan double talk, lies he's told about Obama's record, and the rest of why this Republican ticket is about as attractive and comical as McCain- Palin. Except McCain had a shred of integrity. Big difference actually.


And that's it for this edition of  "I'm probably going to wish I'd deleted this"  :)

Romney up in the polls? Really?

I can't believe the lack of questioning of Romney that's going on. There doesn't seem to be a lot of serious campaigning going on in general. It just seems like petty, not very well thought out attacks and no one's aiming to convince or dig deep. Maybe it's still early.

Aside from politics (but of course I won't avoid them...), there are some things that just don't sit right with me with Romney... and the politics in the church thing... again.

Here are my 2008 and 2010 posts about politics and the pulpit in which I've probably expanded on this a bit better than I have here:
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/07/politics-and-pulpit.html
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-and-state.html

Romney and Trump- a question of integrity?

So it is said Romney was upstaged on his big day when he officially got the Republican nomination by appearing with Trump at a fundraiser that same day. (Why would you do that?)

It is true that Romney quietly affirmed that he believes Obama was born here, but he's willing to accept Trump's big bucks and let him spout his birther and whatever other crazy propaganda without doing a thing to publicly distance himself from this nonsense. Why, besides the money, can't he stand up for what's right- not just that, but known facts? What does this say about Romney who would rather accept the money than set the record straight and get elected on real issues. I guess in business, only the bottom line matters, not how far you bend the rules.

“You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he told reporters. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

Yikes.

Romney's staffers paid to heckle? Another question of integrity?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/axelrods-anti-romney-message-gets-drowned-out/?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20120531

There are always hecklers at the opposing side's event, but not usually the actual campaign staffers that the Romney campaign sent (or decided to do on their own?). At least McCain had the decency to respond to an anti-Obama heckler, calling them off (unfortunately he in so doing mistakenly insinuated that Arabs aren't good citizens...but I guess he did his best...). Romney's response to his paid staffers doing this was that Obama supporters heckle him and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What about taking the high road? Integrity? Not to mention his paid staffers did this, not just supporters who don't represent him. What do they teach in his church- to do unto others as they do unto you (rather than as you would have them do unto you)? Maybe someone should get the appropriate sermons and soundbytes...

The integrity issue is a recurring theme with Romney...as he showed the same bad judgment in rather enjoying support from particular people than standing up for what's right when crazy accusations are leveled: didn't deny the supporter who said Obama should be tried for treason and didn't say anything publicly about Limbaugh's rank porno/prostitute/slut comments about Sandra Fluke.

And then there are the Freudian slips or poor choices of words...or both that he has had to explain: etch-a-sketch, that he likes firing people, that's he' unemployed, $10, 000 bet with Perry over heatlhcare, he follows NASCAR in that he knows some owners, etc...

*** *** *** *** ***

On Facebook, I pondered, "Obama has had to answer for many things he isn't (minor, tangential issues that were overblown); when will Romney have to answer for what he is?"

I mean, if people were worried about how Islam (not relevant to Obama) was going to factor into Obama's policy, why aren't they concerned about The Book of Mormon (which is integral to Romney's beliefs) and how that will affect Romney's worldview/policy? Four years ago, I heard Christians say Romney and Mormons aren't smart enough to be President due to their beliefs. How has that changed I wonder? Can you really buy everything? Romney apparently can.

There has been much talk again already this election year about the abortion and gay marriage issues being THE issues that are the only Biblical considerations and the things that should decide the election. If you vote Democrat, you sin. Or more positively, vote your values, be a Christian in and out of the voting booth. The implications are the same. I have long had an issue with this traditional belief in the church. Are we electing a person to govern or be an elder in the church (or leader of the state church, as I have put it in a sarcastic moment). They are different jobs to fill, with different requirements and goals. And each issue to me (not just 2) involves moral choices. Whatever we do, we are faced with a question of right and wrong, doing it in a way that glorifies God or not. Not to mention whoever makes the case that because Romney is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is more godly or will rule in a more godly way despite the fact that he embraces an entire book of false doctrine is going to have a hard time proving that. (some scriptures for the false doctrine Matt 15:9, 1 Tim 4:16, and maybe Col 2:22 as well)

If people are going to use Romans 1:32 to say that Christians who vote Democrat are approving of homosexuality, why are Christians who are Republicans not approving of an entire book of false doctrine (Romney's Book of Mormon, other testament of Jesus Christ)? They often shrug off my point that these 2 issues don't factor into governing much except to appeal to the base and get votes, so saying that book won't factor into governing isn't going to hold water. If we're talking in principle for Democrats, let's do the same for Republicans.

Romneycare

Republicans make a big deal about Obama and socialism and "Obamacare," but why isn't anyone talking about the similarities between Romney's Massachusetts healthcare bill and Obamacare? If they are ok with Romneycare, why not Obamacare? Is it only the federal vs. state thing that people have their panties in a bunch over? If so, why not talk about that instead of clinging to the socialism nonsense?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Republican Christians often cite 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat- as their opposition to socialism and hence "Obamcare" and Obama.  I do think they work in socialist countries, so I don't know that that would even apply if we did "turn socialist," which is an irrational, manufactured fear and NOT going to happen anyway. It would be convenient to have direct scriptural proof (which may be why the socialism thing is so popular despite being 100% false), but this just doesn't fit, I'm afraid.

Foreign Policy

He's apparently got a lot of Bush people on tap and given his lack of prowess on the issues, you're going to be electing these characters, too. Beware. Or better, yet, don't do it. Been there. Done that. We are still recovering from it.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

McCain's campaign's assessment of Romney in 2008 was: “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”

I wonder if his foreign affairs resume has thickened any since 2008? His choice of advisers is troubling and lack of knowledge is worrisome (because he will rely to heavily on said advisers). Better hope there are no foreign policy issues to contend with (or that some won't be invented) in a Romney Presidency...

Powell is worried about Romney's war cabinet and having been in the middle of one of the biggest deceptions or blunders with the Iraq invasion, I trust his judgment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/us-usa-campaign-powell-idUSBRE84M16220120523

Everyone says this whole thing is going to be about the economy, though. That could be a real mistake, people. 


The foreign policy stuff on the false, mostly false and pants on fire sections is pretty scary:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
And in the previous article he says Russia's our biggest threat.


What should we be comparing current times with anyway? Pre-crash bubbles and the false sense of financial security or the 2008 crash Obama inherited? There are so many ways to spin the economic issues- what are we comparing, temporary fixes and immediate results vs long term reform, etc. 


That's scary that people would ditch the foreign policy issue so quickly after Iraq. I still remember how absolutely dumbfounded I was that A) we were actually attacking and B) no one was asking questions (in the post 9/11 atmosphere of revenge in place of justice, dissent is unpatriotic).


Romney's touting his business success and experience as governor as proof he's the best choice. The Obama campaign made a good point that Romney's experience in maximizing profit isn't necessarily going to translate to expertise in running the country. And then there are the fairly reckless promises Romney's already made...


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker

If I'm President, You'll Have a Job After College
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1167525.html

Romney promises 6% unemployment,  shockingly in line with the current economic forecast after stating anything over 4% was not worth celebrating (not a promise, but certainly a line, hastily redrawn, much like an etch-a-sketch)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/romney-promises-to-bring-unemployment-down-to-6/

It seems there was also a promise of an insane number of jobs Romney would create as president that was blown apart the next day by commentators and compared with Presidents in good times and bad, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking about the unemployment at thing 4% thing...