The DNC Calls Out the RNC

A statement from the DNC:

“After last year’s electoral losses, the RNC pledged to do a better job reaching out to the voters they had systematically alienated – like women, African Americans, LGBT Americans, Hispanics, and more. But instead of modifying their policies to actually present smart solutions for middle class families, the only thing the GOP can unite behind is a plan to continue to limit the audiences—and voters—to whom they will communicate.

"Now with reports that they are looking to have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin moderate their debates, it raises questions about whether the RNC will ever be serious about outreach, or if they will continue to speak to -- and for -- the fringes of their party.

"It seems that Republicans don't get it. If they truly want to connect with a broader audience, they need an agenda that fights for the middle class and is inclusive. Sadly, it appears that with today's vote, their approach is to actually speak to even fewer voters.

“While the Republican Party and the RNC continue to have side-show debates, Democrats will continue to fight for a better bargain for middle class Americans.”

Congressional Debate or Jerry Springer Episode?

Good Journalism Gets Punished

Top 5 Political Fumbles of 2012

Tweet of the Day: October 22, 2012

Lowlights & Highlights: October 20, 2012

If you have been keeping up with voting rights and voter frauds issues as a I have, you are aware that GOP-led states have time and again tried to pass laws in the name of trying to fight in-person voter fraud, incidents of which are very few and far between. These laws, however, have the net affect of disenfranchising many law-abiding, legal citizens who should have the right and ability to vote.

This week, there was an incident here in Virginia (Rockingham County to be specific) where someone was caught throwing away voter registration applications which had been filled out. This happened on the last day here that one could register to vote. Luckily two things happened. First, the culprit has apparently been caught and it seems that he was acting alone (as far as we know so far). Second, he was caught in the act and the applications were turned in in time enough for those applicants to still get registered.

For me personally, this is disturbing because it happened in my home state. Looking at the big picture however, what we have here is a bit of hypocrisy because this person, the apparent culprit, was a Republican operative. How is it that the Republican Party is so ardently against voter fraud, yet when it does happen, they seem to be the ones responsible in one way or another?

~

Even given his poor performance in the first presidential debate, I was highly anticipating the second debate. Maybe it's just my political nerdiness. The important thing is that President Obama did not disappoint. He took it to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney walked himself into a trap and the President had the good sense to do it. He was forceful when he needed to be, including calling Romney out on trying to politicize the deaths of American ambassadors in Benghazi. That ay have been the most presidential I have seen Obama ever when he was talking about securing U.S. consulates and embassies and essentially saying the buck stops with him. Romney's take on what happened that day was so wrong that the moderator (CNN's Candy Crowley) had to fact check him right then and there.

And then there was Romney's "binders full of women" comment. I honestly can't believe he actually said something like that. I'm not sure whether or not Romney can come back from that given that the third and final debate is on foreign policy and I doubt that as many people will be watching that debate as watched the first two.

The President also saved bringing up Romney's 47% comment to throw against him for his closing statement. All-in-all, Obama came across as far more empathetic whereas Romney came off as (surprise surprise) pandering. Between Obama's great performance and Romney's terrible performance, I was very happy with this debate.

Hell, Obama's performance was so good, Tagg Romney (one of Mitt Romney's sons) wanted to take a swing at the President.

Election 2012: The Last Virginia Senate Debate

Many people are aware that the Senate race here in Virginia is a close and crucial one. In that race, the two candidates faced off in their final debate before the election. I'm sure followers this blog know that I am a supporter of Former governor Tim Kaine and I was looking for a strong debate performance from him...and that is what I got.Whenever his opponent George Allen tried to get him, Kaine struck back. Case-in-point: Allen tried to pin Kaine as "Obama's senator" because the President asked Kaine to be the DNC chairman (a request that Kaine accepted). Kaine returned with "It is not anti-Virginia to support the Commander-in-Chief." Kaine then went on to point out Allen's hypocrisy, given that Allen supported former Governor Jim Gilmore who served as the RNC chairman as well as current Governor Bob McDonnell who is serving as the chairman of the Republican Governors' Association.

There was a lot of talk about sequestration  - where Congress has to find a certain amount in spending cuts to the national budget or there will be across the board spending cuts, including defense - throughout the debate. In terms of the debt and the deficit, Kaine talked about balancing the budget using a balanced approach: looking at both taxation and spending cuts. Allen however is one of the many politicians who has signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes...EVER.

Both candidates were asked if they would sign onto the Simpson-Bowles debt commission recommendations as is (this was a yes or no question). Both candidates talked mentioned changes they would like to see to the plan. The moderator asked them again, requesting a simple yes or no. Finally, Kaine was the one with the gumption to answer "no" for both he and Allen (and I think that the audience knew that this was the answer for both by that point, but Kaine was the one with the nerve to actually say it).

It really seemed to me that of the two candidates, Kaine is more likely to compromise with people from the other side of the aisle. The GOP as it currently stands has shown itself to be, with few exceptions, uncompromising (even anti-compromise). While I prefer Kaine's positions on the issues, there is also the large view that the GOP in charge of the Senate would not be good for the commonwealth of Virginia or for America as a whole. Tonight's debate but a spotlight on the differences between Tim Kaine and George Allen and I believe that Tim Kaine made the better case for his candidacy.

Romney's "Binders Full of Women" Lie

From The National Memo:

And here’s the worst part. It’s not even a true story. Mitt didn’t seek out these odd “binders full of women” out. The Boston Phoenix‘s David S. Bernstein explains:

What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

During last night's presidential debate, Romney made the claim that he specifically requested information on women that were qualified for cabinet and other appointed government positions. This appears not to have been the case. Another instance of Mitt Romney making something up to appeal to a key constituency (in this case women). This is why I consider Mitt Romney to be a serial-panderer.

Election 2012: Binders Full of Women

In case you missed the debate and are wondering what everyone means by "binders full of women," or maybe you just want to see the clip again:

Paul Ryan's Biggest Lie

From Salon:

In the middle of an exchange on tax policy, Ryan looked at Biden and said, “You know, I understand you guys aren’t used to doing bipartisan deals …”

 ~

During the Obama administration, the Republican Party defined itself through explicit, extreme partisanship unprecedented in modern American history. They operated in accordance with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s no-bones-about-it declaration, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

No party has ever abused the filibustering process as much as Republicans have done since the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2006. No party has ever abused procedural rules as part of a strategy to block or delay votes on White House appointees as doggedly as the current Republican Party. Obama’s health plan was designed specifically to incorporate conservative ideas and preserve a role for private sector insurance companies, but did not receive a single Republican vote in the Senate. Obama’s stimulus incorporated huge tax cuts explicitly aimed at courting Republicans but received only three votes from Republicans — at a time when warding off an oncoming depression was the single most important task for the government. In the struggle to reach budgetary and debt ceiling votes, Obama repeatedly offered larger concessions than his own party was comfortable with making, and still was rebuffed by the opposition.

Election 2012: Who Won the VP Debate?

The VP Debate: What You Need To Know

From Think Progress:

4. Ryan voted for future defense cuts he now blames on Obama. Though Ryan claims Obama somehow orchestrated the sequester, a series of across-the-board spending cuts triggered if Congress can’t produce a better plan, the VP pick himself was a supporter of the mechanism. Not only did he vote for legislation to establish it, he peddled the plan to his Republican colleagues and proposed a similar initiative in 2004. 

7. Ryan wants to kick 1 million students off of Pell Grants. As part of his budget, Ryan proposed cutting Pell Grants for nearly 1 million college students. Seventy four percent of Pell Grant recipients in 2011 came from families with incomes of $30,000 or less. There is no evidence that these cuts will curb rising college costs.

8. Ryan’s budget included the same $716 billion in Medicare savings included in Obamacare. The $716 billion that Obamacare takes out of Medicare will almost definitely come up in tomorrow’s debate. Ryan has claimed that Obama “raided” Medicare to pay for his health care reform. In fact, Ryan wants to make Medicare a voucher program and proposed taking the same cuts out of Medicare in his budget. But whereas Obamacare uses those funds to eliminate fraud and increase efficiency, Ryan proposed taking that money to pay down the deficit.

Virginia Senate Debate #2: Kaine vs. Allen

The Rumble 2012 - Jon Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly

The Showdown: Jon Stewart VS. Bill O'Reilly

From Politicus USA:

Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly got together for a debate for charity, and while comedy was expected, Jon Stewart walked all over Bill O’Reilly in a debate that morphed into a serious discussion.

~

Bill-O groused about NPR, and moaned about income redistribution. Stewart fired back by asking O’Reilly whether Exxon should be forced to compete on their own, and Bill-O agreed with him. O’Reilly claimed the economy is so bad because small business is afraid of Obamacare. The problem with his reasoning is that small businesses actually support Obamacare. Stewart said the things O’Reilly was suggesting are not things that Obama brought. He then highlighted how Bush turned a surplus into debt. O’Reilly’s reply was the typical right wing answer, “Bush is gone.” O’Reilly said that it doesn’t matter what Bush did. It is Obama’s job to get it under control. (Bill-O was suggesting that it is Obama’s job to clean up Bush’s mess.)

~

The debate contained a surprising amount of substance. O’Reilly brought his Fox News talking points, and Stewart brought facts. As O’Reilly and Stewart battled over entitlements, The Daily Show host asked why it is okay for a businessman to take advantage of tax break, but poor people can’t take advantage of program that will give them something they need? Stewart pointed to the connection between government investment in infrastructure and the success of the country.

After questions about the Middle East, the discussion turned to media bias. Stewart said he doesn’t believe that the mainstream media networks are activist organizations, but Fox News is an overreaction to perceived media bias. Stewart compared Fox News to Lupus. O’Reilly launched the standard defense of Fox News being the conservative equalizer. Stewart answered that anytime you have audience where more people believe the president is a Muslim than believe in evolution, you have a problem.

Lowlights & Highlights: October 6, 2012

The homophobia of the Boy Scouts strikes again. 

I know that this video presented the story in a quasi-humourous way (such is the way of The Young Turks), but let's be real here for a moment. The message that the Boy Scouts is sending to young people is that it is okay, perhaps even "Godly," to discriminate against people because of who they are. I have no idea where in the Bible God says "Thou shalt discriminate," but this notion goes against everything I believe about God and loving thy neighbour. This young man worked really hard to achieve what he achieved and now, because of the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies, it's pretty much all gone.

People should really think twice before allowing their sons into the Boy Scouts organization.

~

I know that the presidential debate from this past Wednesday featured a performance by President Obama has been almost universally panned from both left and right. My main personal gripe is that Obama left a lot of ammunition in his clip: no mention of Romney's 47% comment is the primary one that comes to mind. I want to look on the bright side though. It may be that President Obama may have given Romney just enough rope with which to hang himself. After talking about how he is going to taxes while on the stump, Romney during the debate said he will not cut taxes for the wealthy like himself. That is an utter lie. Romney's tax plan (20% across the board) will cost $5,000,000,000,000 over ten years. Romney also said that President Obama is cutting Medicare funding by $716,000,000,000. Again, not true. Conversely, there is a Medicare cut of that exact same amount in the Paul Ryan budget plan. There are several other lies that Mitt Romney told and the verdict from the fact-checkers is pretty damning: 27 lies (or myths as Think Progress calls them).

While Obama left a lot of ammunition in his clip, Mitt Romney just gave him a lot more. I anticipate that the next presidential debate will be vastly different, and I hope President Obama will come out swinging.

~

Programming note: I'm going to get this feature going again on a regular basis, except probably not this coming weekend as I will most likely be out of town for a wedding.

Obama's Response to the First Debate

Fact-Checking the Debate

From Politico:

The $5 Trillion Tax Cut

Romney: “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut…. I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan….I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.”

Obama: “Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut….For 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is, ‘Never mind.’”

Independent analysts say Romney’s numbers don’t add up. The rate cuts and other changes he’s proposing would indeed total almost $5 trillion over 10 years, and though he said Wednesday he’d pay for those cuts by reducing deductions and credits, a study by the Tax Policy Center found that it was “mathematically impossible” to cover the $5 trillion reduction by eliminating tax breaks solely on high-income taxpayers.

In an interview earlier this week, Romney said he might cap deductions at $17,000. During the debate, he suggested such a cap might kick in at $25,000 or $50,000. However, it’s not clear how those limits would get around the problem the Tax Policy Center study noted. The Romney camp contends that study is biased and points to others with different results.

Romney acknowledged Wednesday that the bare numbers of his tax plan might not be revenue-neutral, but he said growth and new jobs created by his policies would generate added revenue to cover the gap.

~

Simpson-Bowles

Obama: “We’ve [taken the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan,] made some adjustments to it, and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan.”

Obama made the deficit-cutting plan he’s offered sound comparable to the plan from the chairmen of the Simpson-Bowles debt cutting commission. But it’s not: His proposal doesn’t save as much money as Simpson-Bowles and doesn’t offer the kinds of detailed entitlement cuts the panel’s leaders did.

The president’s $4 trillion plan, including $3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in tax hikes from allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, is spread over 10 years — a year longer than Simpson-Bowles. It sounds like a minor difference, but cuts and spending balloon in the so-called out years.

Also, Obama doesn’t touch Social Security in his plan. And the tax changes and war spending are accounted in ways that make Obama’s plan substantially less aggressive.

“The president’s budget falls well short of the savings claimed by the [Simpson-Bowles] commission,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The committee, the kind of wonky group Obama loves to cite, said Obama’s plan provided only about two-thirds of the savings Simpson-Bowles proposed over a comparable period with comparable assumptions.

~

Gas prices

Romney: “Gasoline prices have doubled under the president”

There’s no doubt that a gallon of gas costs twice as much as when Obama took office in January 2009: $1.89 a gallon then to $3.87 a gallon now.

But context matters. Gas prices actually peaked at $4.11 a gallon — an all-time high — in July 2008 but had fallen in late 2008, due to the financial meltdown, before Obama took office.

Most energy experts agree that there’s not much any president has to do with gas prices, and Obama has tried to make that point himself while under fire for the rising prices.

During the debate, Romney said he’d get both energy projects moving, while Obama noted his own efforts to increase domestic energy supplies. “Oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years,” he said.

The article goes on to talk about where statements from both candidates don't exactly add up.

Mitt Romney: Debates Aren't About A Win

From CNN:

As Mitt Romney headed into the crunch period of debate preparation with a heavy weight of expectations on his shoulders, he told a sprawling Denver audience that the Wednesday night match-up against President Barack Obama wasn't about a scoring a win. 

 "People want to know who's going to win - who's going to score the punches and who's going to make the biggest difference in the arguments they make," Romney said. "You know, in my view, it's not so much winning and losing or even the people themselves - the president and myself - it's about something bigger than that."

Instead, Romney said, the trio of presidential debates offered an opportunity for each candidate to present his own pathway for America.

It seems as though Mitt Romney is lowering expectations for the debates he will have against President Obama, the first of which is tomorrow night at 9:00pm Eastern.

Romney goes on to say the debates are about showing the voters the disparate paths that he and the President are offering.

Let's not kids ourselves here folks, both of these candidate (yes, including Romney) want to win these debates. The candidate who does the better job of offering a positive path for this country will be the winner of the debates and, most likely, will be the one inaugurated this coming January. If Romney is trying to get Americans to believe he does not want a win in these debates, he has insulted the intelligence of us all. 

He wants a win, but it would seem that he is not expecting one. By lowering everyone's expectations of his debate performance, he really just wants the bar lowered so that if he manages to get over it, it will look like a win in relative terms. My personal belief is that he has underestimated the people far too many times, and this is just the latest incident to throw onto that pile.

Election 2012: Allen vs. Kaine Debate in Virginia